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

71–80 of 194 posts

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

#71

Post by cafard »

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.

It uses the term "free Persons" but the context is "their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons".

So "all other Persons", i.e. slaves, were counted.

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

#72

Post by jimktrains2 »

wwwwwwwww wrote: post #13
tonetheman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha be really clear dude in this case, in this article it is not both sides. It is solidly the current administration and no one else. Our current party in power has done this. So to retype what you said more correctly. "I wish the Republicans would realize they are destroying..."

Nobody is destroying anything. This sounds more like institutional interests being defended by those who work in the institution that is forced to be more efficient. Many will complain, and scream exaggerated warnings. But in the end, it will help to make things better.

What's being cut short isn't waste but the number of times that a non-responsive house can be visited. It's not some grand excise of waste, it's saying that the administration doesn't want to follow the procedures layout out by the census department to get an accurate count given previous data.

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

#73

Post by kube-system »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #56
Schiendelman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don’t strawman on HN.

I didn't strawman anything. Original question was asking about race discrimination and the response was about "poor people".

The original question asked

> Is it more to do with poverty than race

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

#74

Post by jimktrains2 »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #48
jimktrains2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

14th amendment drops the "free"

While also striking the 3/5 compromise, so I don't think it changes the reading.

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

#75

Post by rubyist5eva »

cj wrote: post #60
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…

Wasn't Anthony Kennedy nominated by a Republican president? > pack the court with justices Without taking a side myself, I think the problem is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_... And more specifically: > He [Mitch McConnell] said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year.[1][2][3] Senate Democrats criticized the move as being…

Republican presidents have been notoriously bad at nominating justices that interpret the law as written, instead of projecting their own personal views and agenda onto them. Anthony Kennedy and David Souter both being particular bad appointees, John Roberts is also pretty bad.

Merrick Garland did not have the votes to be confirmed.

Let's not pretend that the democrats would not ram through a justice to replace RBG in the exact same scenario where they have the White House and the Senate.

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

#76

Post by jimktrains2 »

cafard wrote: post #71
jimktrains2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It uses the term "free Persons" but the context is "their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". So "all other Persons", i.e. slaves, were counted.

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.

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

#77

Post by UncleMeat »

Retric wrote: post #49
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side. That's the issue. One side is now against census so people aren't represented, restricting voting so people don't get a say, and people keep saying 'both sides'.

It might not be close to 50:50 but it’s not 95:5. Less tainted is still tainted. When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically. Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s beco…

> The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering

Precisely one party is proposing laws and suits that push in this direction.

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

#78

Post by RonaldRaygun »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #15
Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people move around vastly more frequently and often end up temporarily sharing living spaces.

Not all non-white people are poor.

> Is it more to do with poverty than race?

I believe they were specifically addressing this part of the parent comment. A benevolent reading of the reply would not point towards this rather blatantly racist interpretation of its meaning.

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

#79

Post by crisdux »

Retric wrote: post #49
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side. That's the issue. One side is now against census so people aren't represented, restricting voting so people don't get a say, and people keep saying 'both sides'.

It might not be close to 50:50 but it’s not 95:5. Less tainted is still tainted. When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically. Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s beco…

I'm assuming by right to vote you mean congressional representation. Since certainly residents of DC do vote for president, among other leaders.

Of course congressional representation for DC is a political issue. Framing this as an issue of democracy doesn't tell the whole story. DC is a federal district and by design has no representation in Congress. This was a political decision.

Congressional action to grant DC statehood outright has no precedent and seemingly goes against the constitution. If residents of DC want the same congressional representation as states, then retrocession to return parts of DC to Maryland or Virginia is the main constitutionally viable option - this has been done before. Congress granting DC statehood outright would be a misuse of their power. This whole thing is rife with politics.

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

#80

Post by tchock23 »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #45
tolbish wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thought it was sarcasm at first, but it appears rubyistSeva genuinely isn't aware that the Democratic nominee was blocked four years ago on the basis of it being an election year, only for the Republican party to turn around and do exactly that this year.

The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent - there was no consent so there was no reason to do it. This year is different - Republicans hold the majority of the Senate and the White House. This nominee has the votes.

That wasn’t the stated reason given by the party at that time. The line sold to the public was ‘can’t confirm in an election year,’ which can be found in many public statements by Republicans at that time.

Going through with a nomination while voting has actually started and announcing it one hour after the death of a justice is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Post reply on HN