Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T20:39:12.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Is There Still a Controversy About Adjusting the Census for Undercount?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2002

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]

Abstract

We appear to agree with Brunell on four factual matters:

  1. “Census 2000 is over; the debate over adjusting the census is not”.

  2. The computer coding error in 1990 would not have erroneously shifted any congressional seats has adjusted data been used for reapportionment.

  3. In March 2001, the Census Bureau announced that it was “unable to conclude … that the adjusted Census 2000 data are more accurate for redistricting.”

  4. The Census Bureau has refused to release the adjusted 2000 census data.

Otherwise we find Brunell's arguments against census adjustment either distorted or confused.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 83 - 85
Copyright
© 2002 by the American Political Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

This is the last in a series of commentaries on the 2000 Census between the authors here and Thomas Brunell (article following). This discussion first began in the December 2000 issue of PS, with articles that explored the Census and the political issues surrounding its interpretation. For a look at the complete set of article please visit PSonline at www.apsanet.org/PS/dec00/