Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:52:33.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisan Politics at Work: Sampling and the 2000 Census

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Margo Anderson  and
Stephen E. Fienberg
Margo Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Stephen E. Fienberg
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his preceding article, Brunell offers some background on Census 2000, the use of sampling and adjustment in a census context, the magnitude of the differential undercount from prior censuses, and the debate over the use of sample-based adjustments to the count. Much of his description of Census 2000 is correct, as far as it goes. It is what he leaves out that is problematic. His omissions lead him to draw the wrong conclusions about the undercount and the methodology for correcting it.

The origins of the peculiar American institution of the decennial census can be traced to the Founding Fathers and the federal Constitution of 1787. When the leaders of the American Revolution met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and decided to apportion seats in the new House of Representatives among the states “according to their respective numbers,” they invented a fundamental new instrument of republican government. The infant U.S. government of the Confederation Era had trouble raising taxes and making decisions, in part because representatives in the Continental Congress voted by states and the states were of very disparate sizes and populations. The framers recognized the need for another policy-making mechanism that took account of the fact that states deserved different numbers of representatives and, hence, votes in the House and Electoral College. The answer was the census, a periodic count of the population and consequent redistribution of House seats and economic resources to reflect the relative sizes of the populations of the states.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 795 - 799
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Margo. 1988. The American Census: A Social History. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Margo, Daponte, Beth O., Fienberg, Stephen E., Kadane, Joseph B., Spencer, Bruce D., and Steffey, Dwayne L.. 2000. “Sampling-based Adjustment of the 2000 Census: A Balanced Perspective.” Jurimetrics 40(31): 341–56.Google Scholar
Anderson, Margo, and Fienberg, Stephen E. 1999. Who Counts? The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Anderson, Margo, and Fienberg, Stephen E. 2000. “Census 2000 Controversies.” Chance 13(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belin, Thomas R., and Rolph, John E. 1994. “Can We Reach Consensus on Census Adjustment?” Statistical Science 9(4): 486–508.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 1994. “The 1991 Census Adjustment: Undercount or Bad Data.” Statistical Science 9(4): 458–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lawrence D., Eaton, Morris L., Freedman, David A., Klein, Stephen P., Olshen, Richard A., Wachter, Kenneth W., Wells, Martin T., and Ylvisaker, Donald. 1999. “Statistical Controversies in Census 2000.” Jurimetrics 39(Summer): 347–75.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas L. 2000. “Using Statistical Sampling to Estimate the U.S. Population: The Methodological and Political Debate over Census 2000.” PS: Political Science and Politics 33(December).Google Scholar
Choi, C.Y., Steel, D.G., and Skinner, T.J. 1998. “Adjusting the 1986 Australian Census Count for Undernumeration.” Survey Methodology 14:173–89.Google Scholar
Choldin, Harvey. 1994. Looking for the Last Percent: The Controversy over Census Undercounts. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Citro, Constance F., and Cohen, Michael L., eds. 1985. The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Methodology in 1990. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Michael L., White, Andrew A., and Rust, Keith F., eds. 1999. Measuring a Changing Nation: Modern Methods for the 2000 Census. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates. 1992a. “Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal Estimates, 1992. Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates, August 7, 1992.” Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates. 1992b. “Additional Research on Accuracy of Adjusted versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal Estimates, 1992. Addendum to Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates, November 25, 1992.” Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Daley, William M. 2000. U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley Delegates Decision to Census Bureau on Adjusting Census 2000. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Diamond, Ian, and Skinner, Chris. 1994 “Comment on Three Papers on Census Adjustment.” Statistical Science 9(4): 508–10.Google Scholar
Eagles, Charles. 1990. Democracy Delayed: Congressional Reapportionment and the Urban-Rural Conflict of the 1920s. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Edmonston, Barry, and Schultze, Charles, eds. 1995. Modernizing the U.S. Census: Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Ericksen, Eugene P., Fienberg, Stephen E., and Kadane, Joseph B. 1994. “Comment on Three Papers on Census Adjustment.” Statistical Science 9(4): 511–15.Google Scholar
Kadane, Joseph B., Meyer, Michael M., and Tukey, John W. 1999. “Yule's Association Paradox and Ignored Stratum Heterogeneity in Capture-Recapture Studies.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 94:855–59.Google Scholar
Mulry, Mary H., and Spencer, Bruce D. 1993. “Accuracy of the 1990 Census and Undercount Adjustments.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(September): 1080–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obenski, Sally M., and Fay, Robert E. 2000. “Analysis of CAPE. Findings on PES Accuracy at Various Geographic Levels, 2000.” Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of the Census, auth. Kenneth Prewitt. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth. 2000. Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of the Census. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Skerry, Peter. 2000. Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Stark, P.B. 1999. “Differences between the 1990 and 2000 Census Adjustment Plans, and Their Impact on Error.” Technical Report 550. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Steel, David. 1994. “Comment on Three Papers on Census Adjustment.” Statistical Science 9(4): 517–19.Google Scholar
Steffey, Duane L., and Bradburn, Norman M., eds. 1994. Counting People in the Information Age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar