Census Bureau nixes sampling on 2000 count
The Census Bureau urged Commerce Secretary Don Evans on Thursday not to use adjusted results from the 2000 population count. Evans must now weigh the recommendation from the Census Bureau, and will make the decision next week. If the data were adjusted statistically it could be used to redistribute and remap political district lines. William Barron, the Bureau Director, said in a letter to Evans that he agreed with a Census Bureau committee recommendation "that unadjusted census data be released as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data." Some say about 3 million or so people make up a disenfranchising undercount. Others disagree viewing sampling as a method to "invent" people who have not actually been counted. Politically, the stakes are high on Evans' final decision. = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Census Bureau nixes sampling on 2000 count
unfortunately, there is a constitutional MANDATED way to take the census ... which is archaic ... and tremendously costly to boot ... but as far as i know ... all attempts at going to a more statistical sampling method have been stricken down in the courts ... this is one place that the constitution clearly needs to be changed ... but, given that amendments need 3/4 of the states to agree ... this will be hard to pass ... since many states see reapportionment under the current method to be advantageous to them ... so, they would not agree to this when the census readily admits that 10% or so are missed ... flat out NOT seen nor counted ... AND we know that statistical methods can greatly improve upon that ... we need to change At 12:16 PM 3/2/01 +, J. Williams wrote: >The Census Bureau urged Commerce Secretary Don Evans on Thursday not >to use adjusted results from the 2000 population count. Evans must >now weigh the recommendation from the Census Bureau, and will make the >decision next week. If the data were adjusted statistically it could >be used to redistribute and remap political district lines. William >Barron, the Bureau Director, said in a letter to Evans that he agreed >with a Census Bureau committee recommendation "that unadjusted census >data be released as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data." >Some say about 3 million or so people make up a disenfranchising >undercount. Others disagree viewing sampling as a method to "invent" >people who have not actually been counted. Politically, the stakes >are high on Evans' final decision. > > > > > > > > >= >Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about >the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ >= _ dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Census Bureau nixes sampling on 2000 count
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:16:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. Williams) wrote: > The Census Bureau urged Commerce Secretary Don Evans on Thursday not > to use adjusted results from the 2000 population count. Evans must > now weigh the recommendation from the Census Bureau, and will make the > decision next week. If the data were adjusted statistically it could > be used to redistribute and remap political district lines. William > Barron, the Bureau Director, said in a letter to Evans that he agreed > with a Census Bureau committee recommendation "that unadjusted census > data be released as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data." > Some say about 3 million or so people make up a disenfranchising > undercount. Others disagree viewing sampling as a method to "invent" > people who have not actually been counted. Politically, the stakes > are high on Evans' final decision. People may wonder, "Why did the Census Bureau say this, and why is there little criticism of them?" According to the reports of a few weeks ago, the inner-city counts, etc., of this census were quite a bit more accurate than they were 10 years ago. That means that we couldn't be so sure that adjustment would make a big improvement, or any improvement. This frees Republicans of some blame, for this one instance, of pushing specious technical arguments for short-term GOP gain. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
