Visual representation of the fact that there are more irrational than rational numbers. Would anybody know of a visual or even (preferably) geometric representation of this?  
To make it more specific: Text, symbols and written numbers are predominantly used as labels, and and less to represent the (ir)rationals themselves, or relations between the two groups. Like, if you need an image or a picture for your answer, that's probably it.
For example:

It does not have to be a rigorous proof, just a visual approach—if possible.
At the same time, a (somewhat elementary) explanation of why it does not make sense to try to visualize this relation (geometrically) is just as welcome.
 A: If we make a rectangular grid with integer coordinates, it's possible to assign a unique angle to any rational number, using the definition $\tan \phi=y/x$ for $\phi \in (-\pi/2, \pi/2)$. 
For positive rationals it would look something like this:


It's intuitively clear to me that the lines corresponding to the rational numbers can't fill all the space here (the gaps are especially noticeable around the numbers with small denominators / numerators).

This can be considered an illustration to marty cohen's answer.
A: In general, my favorite way to think about this is to think about a countable set (rationals) as the set of all finite strings of $0$'s and $1$'s and an uncountable set (reals) as the set of all infinite sequences of $0$'s and $1$'s.
I think this makes it "geometrically" obvious, at least for me.
EDIT 1: Any countable set is in bijection with $\mathbb N$, each element of which has a finite binary representation. Similarly any element of $\mathbb R$ is (by definition of as the completion of $\mathbb Q$) an infinite sequence of rational numbers, where for example you could fix the first $n$ terms of the $n$'th element (ie. $1,10,100,1001,10010,\ldots$).
Although the diagonal argument is at first unappealing, it is in fact geometric in nature, and simpler than it appears. The idea is the following:
Suppose $\mathbb R$ is countable, then the interval $[0,1]$ is also countable (due to the bijection with $\tan^{-1}$) and there is a bijection $\phi:\mathbb N\to\mathbb [0,1]$ (we denote $\phi(n)$ by $\phi_n$, and the $k$'th binary decimal of $\phi_n$ as $\phi_n^k$), and we can list all the elements of $\mathbb R$
$$\label{arr}\tag{1}\phi_1=\phi_1^1\phi_1^2\phi_1^3\ldots\\
\phi_2=\phi_2^1\phi_2^2\phi_2^3\ldots\\
\phi_3=\phi_3^1\phi_3^2\phi_3^3\ldots\\
\vdots$$
now consider the real number $$x=\tilde\phi_1^1\tilde\phi_2^2\tilde\phi_3^3\ldots$$ where $\tilde\phi_i^i=1-\phi_i^i$, then clearly it will follow that
$x\neq \phi_1$, $x\neq \phi_2$, $x\neq \phi_3$, etc... because $x$ always disagrees with $\phi_i$ on the $i$'th decimal, and thus $x\not\in[0,1]$ because if it were, then there would exist some $i$ such that $\phi_i=x$, which we showed impossible. Contradiction.
The "geometric" part of this argument is the fact that you choose $x$ to be the opposite of the diagonal of the array \ref{arr}.
EDIT 2: I am not sure thinking of this geometrically is necessary, as it obscures the fact that countability vs uncountability is not really a property of the "geometry" in the real line. In fact I like that Lee Mosher pointed out the intuitive property I am guessing you were looking for (and in your drawing) that the rationals have "measure" zero while irrationals have "measure" one in the interval, but as some people pointed out in the comments, this is not a characterization of cardinality. It is true that every countable subset of the real line has "measure" zero, but there are also uncountable sets (1/3-Cantor set) also with "measure" zero.
So here is a nice proof I like that shows that this is really not a geometric property in the sense that you were thinking of, but a property of sets.
Again we take a countable set as all finite binary sequences (which we call $C$), and an uncountable set as the set of all functions $C\to \bf 2$ (where $\bf 2$ denotes the set $\{0,1\}$) which we denote $\bf 2^C$. We see that $\bf 2^C$ is the same as the set of all infinite binary sequences, since the element $\phi\in\bf 2^C$ represents the sequence $\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3\ldots$.
We now show the following lemma (where $B^A$ is the set of all functions $A\to B$):
Lemma 1: (Lawvere) If there exists a surjective function $\Theta:A\to B^A$, then any function $f:B\to B$ has a fixed point.
Given $f:B\to B$, consider $g:A\to B$ given by $g(a)=f(\Theta(a)(a))$, then since $\Theta$ is surjective there exists $a_f$ such that $\Theta(a_f)=g$, and thus $\Theta(a_f)(a_f)=g(a_f)=f(\Theta(a_f)(a_f))$, so $\Theta(a_f)(a_f)$ is a fixed point of $f$.
Now, suppose there was a bijection $\Theta:C\to\bf 2^C$ (and hence surjection), then the map
$$0\mapsto 1\\1\mapsto 0$$ has a fixed point, which is clearly not the case. Contradiction.
A: This is a somewhat more "geometric" argument, somewhat analogous to Cantor's.  Consider any sequence of distinct real numbers $x_n$.  I will construct a real number $y$ that is not in the sequence, as the limit of a sequence $y_n$.  Start by choosing $y_1 \ne x_1$.  At stage $n$, we will have a real number $y_n$ that is not $x_1, \ldots, x_n$.  Let $a_1, \ldots, a_n$ be $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ sorted in increasing order.  For convenience we take $a_0 = -\infty$ and $a_{n+1} = +\infty$.  $x_{n+1}$ will be in one of the $n+1$ open intervals 
 $(a_j, a_{j+1})$.    If we happen to have $x_{n+1} = y_n$, let $y_{n+1}$ be some point of $(x_{n+1}, a_{j+1})$, otherwise $y_{n+1} = y_n$.  In fact I'll take  $$y_{n+1} = \cases{y_n + 10^{-n} & if $a_{j+1} = \infty$\cr
                         y_n + 10^{-n}(a_{j+1}-y_n) & otherwise} $$
It's easy to show that this is a nondecreasing sequence and bounded above, therefore has a limit as $n \to \infty$, and that this limit can't be one of the $x_n$.    
Visually, think of $y_n$ as sitting at a point on a number line, with the $x_n$ as (single-point) hailstones coming down from above, and sticking to the number line as they land.  If a hailstone hits $y_n$, it hops a tiny bit to the right, but by such a small distance that it will never get much closer to any of the existing hailstones.  
A: The rational numbers can be represented diagrammatically as a 'tree' (for example Farey Sequence or Stern–Brocot tree). Such a tree, continued infinitely, is a fractal. The outer edge of the fractal will always be rough, whereas the real numbers (if similarly represented) would be smooth.
A: The rationals can be
mapped into the lattice points
$(n, m)$,
which are an infinite set
of isolated points
in the plane.
The irrationals,
by any of the standard ways
of mapping two reals
into one
(such as zipping the digits
of a pair of reals)
fill the whole plane
(with quibbles about two representations
or points missed
being disregarded).
A: Here is a geometric difference between the rationals and the irrationals: the length of the rationals equals zero, whereas the length of the irrationals equals infinity. 
Here's why the rationals have zero length. Start with an enumeration of the rationals: 
$$p_1,p_2,p_3,...
$$
Pick your favorite tiny positive number $\epsilon>0$.
For each $k=1,2,3,...$, let $I_k$ be the interval centered on $p_k$ of radius $\frac{\epsilon}{2^k}$. Now take the union of these intervals:
$$X = I_1 \cup I_2 \cup I_3 \cup \cdots
$$
The total length of $X$ is no more than the sum 
$$\text{Length}(I_1) + \text{Length}(I_2) + \text{Length}(I_3) + \cdots = \frac{\epsilon}{2} + \frac{\epsilon}{2^2} + \frac{\epsilon}{2^3} + \cdots = \epsilon
$$
But the rationals are contained in $X$, so the total length of the rationals is at most $\epsilon$. 
But you can repeat this argument for tinier and tinier values of $\epsilon$, approaching zero.
So the total length of the rationals is zero.
But the total length of the irrationals is infinity, because it equals the the total length of the whole real line (which is infinity) minus the total length of the rationals (which is zero). 
Thus, there are more irrationals than rationals. 
Now this argument may sound fishy, but it turns out to be completely rigorous. Once you have developed the Lebesgue measure of the real line, substitute the phrase "Lebesgue measure" for "length", and you've got a proof.
