Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 194 posts

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#161

Post by learc83 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #152
learc83 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor white people aren't likely to have an undocumented person living in their household though. People in that situation are much less likely to talk to government employees or to fill out census forms in the first place. So yes it's is undercounting poor people, but also disproportionately immigrants and relatives of immigrants.

Poor white people aren't likely to have an undocumented - person of color - living in their household. I've known a number of local households that had undocumented Canadians, Brits and Germans. It's been my experience that Americans who are hyper-concerned with illegal immigration, aren't grinding their teeth over these nationalities.

There's definitely a double standard. But Canadians and Europeans make up less than 5% of the total number of undocumented immigrants in the US.

So I still stand by my point that poor white people aren't likely to have undocumented people living in their household at all. Regardless of race.

>I've known a number of local households that had undocumented Canadians, Brits and Germans.

Also how many of those households were poor? There isn't nearly as much incentive for a poor Canadian, Brit, or German to come here as an undocumented immigrant because they'd be giving up guaranteed health care and far more permissive social services.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#162

Post by censusthrowaway »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #157
censusthrowaway wrote: post #104

Here is some inside info. I work for the Census. It is a highly dysfunctional organization. Nothing to do with current administration. The various software the local offices use actively hinders the job of management and enumerators (the people who come to your door). Hundreds of and hundred of millions of dollars and incalculable time is wasted just due to this. Imagine the worst ERP or CRM that you have ever used,…

In the future daily low-cost high-resolution images of the country could give a real-time accurate headcount. Is that being discussed? Would be a good way to get away from the 10 year lag data and have real time information to make policy choices.

Upper management wouldn't know what that means. Can't even make a good app.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#163

Post by censusthrowaway »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #146
censusthrowaway wrote: post #104

Here is some inside info. I work for the Census. It is a highly dysfunctional organization. Nothing to do with current administration. The various software the local offices use actively hinders the job of management and enumerators (the people who come to your door). Hundreds of and hundred of millions of dollars and incalculable time is wasted just due to this. Imagine the worst ERP or CRM that you have ever used,…

A big part of why Census doesn't operate better is the Republicans chronically underfund it. This entire census cycle was the Trump Administration's responsibility. If Census lacks the tools and capabilities to execute it, it's on them.

I am not a republican, but this isn't true. There is so much waste and inefficiency. The Census wastes billions of dollars right now. Again ask almost any Census employee about how much time an money is wasted. Not everything is Trump's fault, he isn't that capable.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#164

Post by refurb »

Retric wrote: post #126
refurb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose positions are unpopular? Last I checked most of the elections are pretty evenly split at the national level (+/- 10%).

Based on polling data, 3/4th if Americans support Roe vs Wade. However, both parties are trying to get elected so they pick a set of options that gives them a significant chance to be elected. Why such unpopular options can make the cut is people don’t care about issues equally. When a significant minority care a lot about one issue they get patched together with other such groups and you can get elected even if most…

Seems like Roe vs Wade is Closer to 60/40, but regardless, that’s a pretty loaded question. What does overturn mean? Complete ban on abortion? Replace with something else?

When asked if pro-choice/pro-life, Americans are pretty evenly split.[1]

So as per the OP’s comment, which issues are so strongly supported that only party clearly supports them?

Gun control? No.

Welfare reform? No.

Higher spending? No.

I’m genuinely curious.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#165

Post by jimktrains2 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #134
jimktrains2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the 3/5 compromise has been removed, but even still are you arguing that immigrants aren't people or aren't free, i.e. not slaves.

Prisoners aren't free, but they still use infrastructure and I'm pretty sure they are supposed to be counted in the census.

They are, because they are free in that they are not slaves. Prisoners still have a plethora of constitutional rights.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#166

Post by rubyist5eva »

tzs wrote: post #137
rubyist5eva wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthony Kennedy was a swing vote and he retired in 2018, so no - it was not "majority conservative". Kennedy voted in the affirmative for both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Obergefell v. Hodges, both of which both being particularly egregious examples of legislation from the bench. I am both pro gay marriage and pro-choice - but neither of these things exist in the Constitution. Not one word. Either amend the Const…

> I am both pro gay marriage and pro-choice - but neither of these things exist in the Constitution. Not one word. Neither does straight marriage.

Because marriage was supposed to be managed by _the states_ which is what the constitution says. Both Obergfell and Roe/Casey created constitutional "rights" out of thin air.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#167

Post by abathur »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #116
abathur wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple games being played concurrently by all of the different participants, making it hard to understand what/why from the local context of a single game. If both sides erode your faith in the system, I suspect it's because you see real problems that need to be solved, but the people "elected to solve them" are instead constrained by these games. Speaking of systems--can you clarify what about the electo…

I think the "Great Compromise" helps correct for the fact that people in different locations value different things and have different experiences. People who live in farming communities understand plenty of things that people in cities don't and vice-versa. Beyond that, it's an agreement that was reached between states who were giving up their sovereignty to join together. If we discard compromises like that because…

Thanks for responding. I'm going to poke at this a bit, so I want to be clear that I respect you for engaging.

> I think the "Great Compromise" helps correct for the fact that people in different locations value different things and have different experiences. People who live in farming communities understand plenty of things that people in cities don't and vice-versa.

This phrasing feels like a platitude that can justify any distribution of electoral-college power we feel like creating. Can you clarify how it "corrects" for people having different locations/values/experiences?

Maybe it helps to focus on narrower questions like: Do you feel like the current winner-take-all allocation in most states or proportional allocation as used in Nebraska and Maine either uphold or undermine the values you're describing here?

> ...it's an agreement that was reached between states who were giving up their sovereignty to join together. If we discard compromises like that because people who won the popular vote by a tiny margin now think it's outdated and that they have some democratic mandate, then collectively society has lost my trust to keep it's word on future compromises wherein I'm asked to forfeit some of my independence and sovereignty.

This feels a little unfair...

1. States made a compromise of some sovereignty to join, but the compromise was very much about protecting significant parts of that sovereignty. The states, quite pointedly, retain the sovereignty to modify the compromise. If the electoral college is discarded, it will be because states exercised their sovereignty, via this process, to do so.

2. Following the above, minus a few stipulations, each state legislature retains broad power regarding how their electors are selected and what they are expected to do. Something like the Fair Vote proposal entails exercising this sovereignty.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#168

Post by rubyist5eva »

lordnacho wrote: post #135
amadeuspagel wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade but see it as an example of legislating from the bench.

There's also nothing wrong with that. The distinction between the different branches creating law is pretty vague. If congress makes a law and the court strikes it down, are they "legislating from the bench"? Or are they merely pointing out that the new law is incompatible with the rest of the laws? The quote is right, law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide.

> law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide

That's what it should be and was intended to be by the Founding Fathers. When the judiciary strikes down an unconstitutional law, it is supposed to exactly be because it is not compatible with existing laws or the constitution. 100%.

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#169

Post by CyberRabbi »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #40
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

think in general about a government that wants to target, arrest, and deport certain groups of people Yes. They are deporting people who didn't come into the country legally. Its important to have an accurate count of citizens in the country since that's who votes. There is an upcoming Supreme Court case that will determine if non citizens should be counted for House representation. You may not agree with it, but it…

The constitution specifically says the census is a count of all "free Persons", not only citizens. Obviously SCOTUS will weigh in now, but I think it's important to realize the actual wording of what the census is.

Your interpretation would imply they intended non-citizen native Americans to be counted in the Census.

Re: The 2020 census is being ‘sabotaged,’ says leading U.S. statistician

#170

Post by kevinmchugh »

nonplussed wrote: post #119
matthewmcg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distribution of voting power is based on population, not citizenship. Non-citizens need to be counted too.

Only citizens can vote.

Citizens of a certain age, who meet certain residency and bureaucratic requirements and haven't lost the right due to criminal convictions.

Women only got the franchise 100 years ago, but had always been counted on the census.

Post reply on HN