Hope! Change! From the AP:
President Barack Obama has chosen Robert M. Groves to be the next census director, turning to a professor who has clashed with Republicans over the use of statistical sampling to lead the high-stakes head count.
The White House will announce the selection of Groves on Thursday, a Commerce Department official told The Associated Press. The official demanded anonymity because the individual was not authorized to speak before the announcement.
Groves is a former Census Bureau associate director of statistical design, who served from 1990-92. He has spent decades researching ways to improve survey response rates. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take the helm less than a year before the decennial count, which has been beset by partisan bickering and will be used to apportion House seats and allocate billions in federal dollars.
House Republicans quickly expressed dismay over the selection of Groves, saying Obama’s choice raised serious questions about his political intentions.
“This is an incredibly troubling selection that contradicts the administration’s assurances that the census process would not be used to advance an ulterior political agenda,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Mr. Groves will have every opportunity to address these concerns during the confirmation process.”
When he was the bureau’s associate director, Groves recommended that the 1990 census be statistically adjusted to make up for an undercount of roughly 5 million people, many of them minorities in dense urban areas who tend to vote for Democrats.
But in a fierce political dispute that prompted White House staff to call advisers to the bureau and express opposition, the Census Bureau was overruled by Republican Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher, who called the proposed statistical adjustment “political tampering.”
The Supreme Court later ruled in 1999 that the use of statistical sampling cannot be used to apportion House seats, but indicated that adjustments could be made to the population count when redrawing congressional boundaries.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has made clear that sampling will not be used for apportionment. He stated during his confirmation hearing that there are no plans to use sampling for redistricting, while indicating that sampling could be used to measure census accuracy or collect a wider range of demographic data.
Census experts have said it would be difficult at this point to make plans for sampling in the 2010 census for congressional redistricting purposes since it is only a year away. It is more likely that Groves could have an impact on statistical adjustment and other decisions as part of long-term planning for census surveys after 2010.
No longer we will be held in thrall to the failed politics of the past!
From now on, we’ll make our own future! Even if that means fudging some numbers to correct otherwise faulty ledgers.
For the greater good!
9 out of every 7 dentists surveyed agree, Crest kills germs better than brushing alone.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has made clear that sampling will not be used for apportionment. He stated during his confirmation hearing that there are no plans to use sampling for redistricting, while indicating that sampling could be used to measure census accuracy or collect a wider range of demographic data.
We have assurances from the Administration! What could possibly go wrong?
Democrats sure love havin’ them colored folks all clustered together. One day some curious soul is gonna come round to wondering just how badly they really want these folks’ lives to improve.
What a pity the Constitution requires an “actual enumeration”.
Of course, what does the Constitution matter anymore?
How to answer a census taker:
“Is this 123 Main Street?”
“Yes, it is.”
“And how many individuals reside here?”
“Three”
“And what is your estimated family income?”
“None of your damn business. We’re done. Have a nice day.”
It tempts one to not participate in the census, but then the terrorists win, so all we can do is video-stalk ACORN members and make sure they don’t fill out fake census forms or trash the ones from “privileged” neighborhoods.
He has spent decades researching ways to improve survey response rates.
And then said fuck actual responses we’ll just weight it to where we get the numbers Mr. Soros wants. Science!
What part of “actual enumeration” don’t they understand?
I feel like I live in the United States of Chicago.
I wonder what Meghan thinks of this? In fact the suspense is killin’ me.
but at least we don;t never have to worry about them misusing statistical sampling for political purposes. Mr. Soros would never do that.
What part of “actual enumeration†don’t they understand?
The “living Constitution” just craps out whatever gets in the way of port-side objectives anymore, Pat.
Isn’t James Hansen available? He knows how to make the data fit the theory.
I remember having a version of this debate with a co-worker ten years or so ago. Being a scientific-minded type of guy, his main argument seemed to be that “the field of statistics is a valid science.”
Which it is. But my argument was that it has appropriate applications, and making up people you assume are there isn’t one of them. Not to mention the “actual enumeration” stuff and all.
I’m gonna get me a job with the census bureau. I’d like to go door to door and do me some sampling. If you know what I mean.
“the field of statistics is a valid science.â€
It’s, at its best, a measure of ignorance.
One meaning of “enumerate” is “account for.”
Obviously it means count in the Constitution, but somewhere just barely shy of 100% of everything the government has ever done isn’t what that little flap of jibber-jabber says it can do.
It does not matter.
psycho – I think the world “actual” is fairly important in the phrase actual enumeration. It does not so best case scenario enumeration, nor the amount we wish to see enumeration, nor made up out of whole cloth enumeration.
IIRC, the USSC has already ruled on statistical sampling. It cannot be done for House apportionment, that must be an actual enumeration. Sampling can be used for other legislative acts of Congress, but not that. If Team Obama also tries to argue using sampling in apportionment I expect stare decisis to be upheld.
Stare decisis is a hard thing to get around. You notice the cases that overturn it, but there are many, many more cases that uphold that doctrine that are never noticed.
#14 Jim in KC: Statistics may be a valid science, but doesn’t it require that there actually be a known to extrapolate from? That is, there is a population of X size, so we sampled this percentage to reach our conclusion? How would statistics be different from a random guess if you didn’t know the size of the body you are sampling from? (These are actual questions, not snark, by the way.)
And yes, I know that all data is stale as soon as it is put together. Including an actual enumeration of the population of a large nation.
“psycho – I think the world “actual†is fairly important in the phrase actual enumeration.”
Does it make unconstitutional to miss people, as then we don’t have an actual count?
“Four. Human. Good day to you, comrade.”
21 – don’t be so obtuse. Actual enumeration means you have to , you know, actually go and count. No mail in, no guessing, no records review. Do you want Chicago to have 100,000,000,000,000 people for apportionment purposes?
“Do you want Chicago to have 100,000,000,000,000 people for apportionment purposes?”
I’m asking if it would be as unconstitutional to do that as to say that it has 5, because that’s all you counted.
It is being intentionally obtuse, LtC John. It is what it does, a veritable tsunami of stupidity.
I’m asking if it would be as unconstitutional to do that as to say that it has 5, because that’s all you counted.
Incompetence isn’t unconstitutional, unfortunately.
“Incompetence isn’t unconstitutional, unfortunately.”
That’s one thing, now how about malice?
Not that I know of, but I am sure you can find it in there somewhere.
[…] ACORN, of course, is meant to help out with the census, overseen by Groves, as reported by Jeff, yesterday. […]
It doesn’t have anything to do with enumerating nothing. It’s just about power. The socialists have come up with a technique to advantage themselves at the expense of people what love America. NPR will explain why this dirty socialist technique is wise and just. A civil rights issue, really. Arlen Specter and Quaalude Barbie Kay Bailey Hutchison will nod gravely and agree with the socialists.
Bored now.
I’m just going to make sure that all 43 of the white male Protestant conservatives that live in my two-bedroom apartment get counted in this census. Does get crowded now and then.
My statistical sampling models indicates that DeKalb County, GA has four times as many reliable Democrat votes as are counted by the US Census.
Hence, DeKalb deserves three more US Representatives.
Cobb County, by comparison, is exactly where it should be.
I swear to God, the day will come when we’ll be hunting Democrats with dogs, pitchforks, and torches.
Mikey–that’s why it’s a bad idea, in my opinion.
There might be some observations or additional data that provide some basis as the starting point, but you’re right: it’s primarily a wild-ass guess.
Sunday morning links (posted early)…
Photo on right from our webmeister Chris’s back yard yesterday. He has hired this fellow to organize his garbage recycling. I did the same. In fact, I have two of them moonlighting for me. The Brits, who seem so obsessed with their "bins," n…
Mikey, statistical sampling would work like this. You choose a sample area of specific characteristics (more on that later). You then send out the census forms and census workers do an enumeration in the usual way. After that count has been done, you send out an army of workers to go street by street, door by door, alley by alley, cardboard box by cardboard box, park bench by park bench, and you do as complete a count as you could do. You compare this result with the earlier one, and from that you determine the number of “residents” that were missed by the standard counting procedure. If this is all done right, and the sample size is sufficiently large, the error in the adjustment factor is very small. Thus, when the same correction factor is applied to the counts in OTHER areas, the error in the “corrected” number of residents is smaller than it would be if the people missed by the standard count were left out entirely.
The problem is knowing when it is appropriate to apply the same “correction” factor to other areas. Different census tracts will have different characteristics regarding, say, the percentage of homeless people. How close, for example, do different urban areas have to match in their demographic characteristics to say that you can use correction factor X rather than correction factor Y? I think that’s the tough nut to crack. And that’s where the end result can get politicized if the guy running the count has a goal of reaching a particular predetermined answer. That’s why it is important for people to be confident the Census Bureau will not be used for political ends. I’ve never felt that the Census Bureau could be trusted any better than the IRS (census records are not entirely confidential and are made public after 72 years, for example), and now there seems to be good reason to be suspicious of it. The assurances coming out of DC are not very comforting.