Politico: Trump's Revenge on California- The Census

[thewop]

The point of he census is to determine the total number of inhabitants in order to set Congressional apportions. I would have thought you knew that.

Why would people who aren't citizens have representation? Why would there never have been a citizenship question before? Seems it was broken. Of course we want to know how many people are there, but at the same time, when it comes to who should be represented...citizens, that's who.

Let's be honest though, California will have armies of people ensuring that box is ticked for every response.

 

[Lone Clone]

Incorrect. Modern statistical theory was discovered and widely implemented in the 20th century. Some visionaries like Laplace utilized and pursued forward thinking methods during that time but it was rare and not well accepted by the academic community.

So no, the founders did not understand sophisticated sampling and extrapolation as employed on modern data.

Stop speaking out of ignorance.

I would suggest you follow your own advice. What I wrote was correct.

I said nothing about statistical theory. What I said was that people in the 18th century knew about sampling and extrapolation. They used iti all the time. They might count the trees in a given area and extrapolate that to estimate how many trees were in an entire area. Or they might determine there were X head of cattle in a given space, so a space four times as big should have 4X head of cattle.

What I think they didn't want to do was count the people in a given space and assume, for census purposes, that they could use the same methods they did with the trees and the sheep.

 

[Lone Clone]

Double post. Computer is rebelling again today.

 

[artradley]

I think that's a different discussion than the one the rest of us, at least Boo and I, are having. He's saying we should use sampling methods because there would be less chance of undercounting people, specifically illegal aliens. I'm saying that would be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the relative cost of the thing. And I'm sure that if using sampling methods was likely to benefit the GOP instead of the Democrats, the Republicans would be demanding a change and the Dems would be fighting it.

What matters to me is following the Constitution.

And yet, the constitution does not specify how the census is to be taken.

 

[artradley]

Why would people who aren't citizens have representation? Why would there never have been a citizenship question before? Seems it was broken. Of course we want to know how many people are there, but at the same time, when it comes to who should be represented...citizens, that's who.

Let's be honest though, California will have armies of people ensuring that box is ticked for every response.

Take that up with the founders.

 

[Lone Clone]

I guess the only constitutional way to do it is to go house-to-house, line up everybody, and count them. Giving people a form to fill-out and mail-in would not be an "actual enumeration."

That would be ideal, and I think it's probably what was done originally. It's a long, long step from there to what you seem to be advocating.

Let's put it simply: If that system worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation because President Hillary Clinton's administration would be supporting it.

 

[BelemNole]

I think that's a different discussion than the one the rest of us, at least Boo and I, are having. He's saying we should use sampling methods because there would be less chance of undercounting people, specifically illegal aliens. I'm saying that would be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the relative cost of the thing. And I'm sure that if using sampling methods was likely to benefit the GOP instead of the Democrats, the Republicans would be demanding a change and the Dems would be fighting it.

What matters to me is following the Constitution.

The constitution says to count all the people. The democrats want to do that. The GOP has recently had an interest in voter suppression. Adding the citizenship question to the ballot is just another leaf on the same tree. Yes, population is tied to the number of representatives, but more importantly it's tied to funding of services. The roads don't care if the people using them are citizens or not, nor do the other public services. They just need to be there, appropriately funded.
You're whole argument seems to acknowledge that the GOP is petty/playing politics with something that should be above politics. Count all the people and fund the states accordingly.

 

[artradley]

That would be ideal, and I think it's probably what was done originally. It's a long, long step from there to what you seem to be advocating.

Let's put it simply: If that system worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation because President Hillary Clinton's administration would be supporting it.

You realize that the polls were pretty close, don't you? And that doesn't take into account the added complexity of predicting a vote, because you can't just poll people's intentions, you have to predict which ones will actually vote.

 

[Lone Clone]

The constitution says to count all the people. The democrats want to do that. The GOP has recently had an interest in voter suppression. Adding the citizenship question to the ballot is just another leaf on the same tree. Yes, population is tied to the number of representatives, but more importantly it's tied to funding of services. The roads don't care if the people using them are citizens or not, nor do the other public services. They just need to be there, appropriately funded.
You're whole argument seems to acknowledge that the GOP is petty/playing politics with something that should be above politics. Count all the people and fund the states accordingly.

the citizenship question was a routine part of the deal until 1960, according to the NY Times, and we all know the NY Times is never wrong.

My argument is that the Constitution calls for an actual enumeration, that the sampling system advocated by the Dems does not qualify, so the Constitution should be either followed or amended. That's not rocket science. If the result hurts one party more than the other, that's how the ball bounces.

 

[Lone Clone]

You realize that the polls were pretty close, don't you? And that doesn't take into account the added complexity of predicting a vote, because you can't just poll people's intentions, you have to predict which ones will actually vote.

Let's have the courts decide the constitutionality.

 

[BelemNole]

the citizenship question was a routine part of the deal until 1960, according to the NY Times, and we all know the NY Times is never wrong.

My argument is that the Constitution calls for an actual enumeration, that the sampling system advocated by the Dems does not qualify, so the Constitution should be either followed or amended. That's not rocket science. If the result hurts one party more than the other, that's how the ball bounces.

Your argument is based on what? Feelings? Voices from the great beyond? Here's the actual text:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Where does that say an actual enumeration? It doesn't, it says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

 

[PackerHawkeye1]

Incorrect. Modern statistical theory was discovered and widely implemented in the 20th century. Some visionaries like Laplace utilized and pursued forward thinking methods during that time but it was rare and not well accepted by the academic community.

So no, the founders did not understand sophisticated sampling and extrapolation as employed on modern data.

Stop speaking out of ignorance.

I would suggest you follow your own advice. What I wrote was correct.

I said nothing about statistical theory. What I said was that people in the 18th century knew about sampling and extrapolation. They used iti all the time. They might count the trees in a given area and extrapolate that to estimate how many trees were in an entire area. Or they might determine there were X head of cattle in a given space, so a space four times as big should have 4X head of cattle.

What I think they didn't want to do was count the people in a given space and assume, for census purposes, that they could use the same methods they did with the trees and the sheep.

Good grief... of course they didn’t want you to do that because that would be a terrible way to estimate population data. That has no bearing on the discussion however.

The discussion is modern statistical sampling techniques which the founders had no comprehension of. Utilizing proper statistical models is the best known way of estimating population data and its uncertainty and is much better than tallying up a survey.

 

[Lone Clone]

Your argument is based on what? Feelings? Voices from the great beyond? Here's the actual text:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Where does that say an actual enumeration? It doesn't, it says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

It says actual enumeration in the sentence you just quoted.

 

[BelemNole]

It says actual enumeration in the sentence you just quoted.

Yes, it says the word "enumeration", but not as you are implying. One would think that type of word play would be beneath you as a former journalist. Read the paragraph and tell me again that it is calling for a direct physical account.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

The point of he census is to determine the total number of inhabitants in order to set Congressional apportions. I would have thought you knew that.

Wow, Iowa must really be stupid. If we were smart, we would bus in millions of people from latin america for the census, keep them her long enough to be counted, and then bus them back home. We could be a state of 6 million instead of 3 Million. We would then get plenty of money (more than enough to pay for the buses), and more congressional seats. Yes, that is exactly what a good liberal would do.

 

[artradley]

Wow, Iowa must really be stupid. If we were smart, we would bus in millions of people from latin america for the census, keep them her long enough to be counted, and then bus them back home. We could be a state of 6 million instead of 3 Million. We would then get plenty of money (more than enough to pay for the buses), and more congressional seats. Yes, that is exactly what a good liberal would do.

Well...that was interesting.

 

[Lone Clone]

Yes, it says the word "enumeration", but not as you are implying. One would think that type of word play would be beneath you as a former journalist. Read the paragraph and tell me again that it is calling for a direct physical account.

I see your point, and it's a good one.

As I said, let the courts decide it. If it's Constitutional to use sampling, then the argument is what method is least inaccurate.

 

[BelemNole]

I see your point, and it's a good one.

As I said, let the courts decide it. If it's Constitutional to use sampling, then the argument is what method is least inaccurate.

Why do they need to decide? The constitution says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." and congress has directed the method. So why do you want to legislate from the bench? I thought you guys were against that.

 

[Lone Clone]

Why do they need to decide? The constitution says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." and congress has directed the method. So why do you want to legislate from the bench? I thought you guys were against that.

I believe there is disagreement as to what the legal requirements are for the census. If not, then I have been misinformed. Absent disagreement, of course I would not want a court to make the decision.

 

[ANYCHawk]

I think that it is fair to have two census counts. 1 for total legal residents and 1 for total living souls. The easiest way to do that is to ask an additional question when taking a single census questionnaire.

I think several amendments would have a problem with a government official showing up randomly on my door asking if i was a citizen.

 

[Lone Clone]

I think several amendments would have a problem with a government official showing up randomly on my door asking if i was a citizen.

That wasn't the case for over 150 years.

 

[ANYCHawk]

That wasn't the case for over 150 years.

And?

 

[Lone Clone]

And?

That question was part of the census until 1960. Ergo, asking it probably didn't violate the Constitution.

 

[ANYCHawk]

That question was part of the census until 1960. Ergo, asking it probably didn't violate the Constitution.

A lot of things didn't violate the constitution, until they did.

 

[Lone Clone]

A lot of things didn't violate the constitution, until they did.

Weak.

 

[NoleATL]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/trump-california-census-342116

LOS ANGELES — Fear is rising among Democrats over the prospect that President Donald Trump’s hard line on immigration might ultimately cost California a seat in Congress during the upcoming round of reapportionment.

Top Democrats here are increasingly worried the administration’s restrictive policies — and the potential inclusion of a question about citizenship on the next U.S. census — could scare whole swaths of California’s large immigrant population away from participating in the decennial count, resulting in an undercount that could cost the state billions of dollars in federal funding over the next decade and, perhaps, the loss of one of its 53 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The fears are well-founded: According to the population formula used by Congress to distribute House seats every 10 years, California is currently on the bubble in 2020, on the verge of losing a seat for the first time in its history.

California’s Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, on Wednesday proposed spending more than $40 million on the state’s own census-related outreach efforts to avoid that fate.

“There’s a lot of fear” about the census count, said Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc., the voter data firm used by both Republicans and Democrats in California. “The state is starting to get together resources, because it does have an actual direct impact … on state revenues if we have a severe undercount.”

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told POLITICO the Trump administration’s management of the census could have “devastating effects” on his state.

“The citizenship question is just the latest red flag — maybe one of the biggest — but just the latest red flag,” Padilla said.

Angst about the 2020 census took hold nationally long before the Justice Department urged the U.S. Census Bureau last month to ask people about their citizenship, a request first reported by ProPublica. The bureau has been hampered by management questions and funding shortages that voting-rights advocates fear could hinder efforts to reach immigrants and other hard-to-count groups.

Your thread title actually sounds like Trump did it on purpose for the specified consequence... I 100% guarantee that wan't on Trump's mind.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

How the hell can you have a census that doesn't include the citizenship question? Really? What's the point of even having a census?

Fair questions.

 

[aflachawk]

I agree with this.....California shouldn't get a higher proportion of federal money because they have a high proportion of illegals.....legal non-citizens ie green card/work visa types should be counted.

Maybe they could compromise and count non-citizens as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes.

LC you are on fire today. Keep it up

 

[CeMar_Clone]

The constitution says to count all the people. The democrats want to do that. The GOP has recently had an interest in voter suppression. Adding the citizenship question to the ballot is just another leaf on the same tree. Yes, population is tied to the number of representatives, but more importantly it's tied to funding of services. The roads don't care if the people using them are citizens or not, nor do the other public services. They just need to be there, appropriately funded.
You're whole argument seems to acknowledge that the GOP is petty/playing politics with something that should be above politics. Count all the people and fund the states accordingly.

Simple solution. Remove all illegals, enforce the border including building the wall, and you can have everything you just said. Not a chance in hell you will compromise.

 

[BelemNole]

I often wonder if you are stupid or learning disabled.
It's a census - the point is to count people living in the country. Once you do that you can propose moronic laws/policy like those you suggest, but you do the census first so you know your starting point.

 

[Lone Clone]

LC you are on fire today. Keep it up

I do what I can.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Several months ago I got probably a dozen packets and reminders from the Census Bureau trying to get me to fill out this terribly long questionnaire about my income, age, race, education level, marital status, etc. they also wanted that information on my roommates. I was going to comply until I understood how many questions there were.

I imagine they just sell that data to different companies.