Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:29:14.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Statistical Sampling to Estimate the U.S. Population: The Methodological and Political Debate over Census 2000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Thomas L. Brunell
Thomas L. Brunell*
Affiliation:
Binghamton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most hotly debated issues of the past four years has been the method to be used to count the population in Census 2000. Broadly, the debate is over whether to incorporate statistical sampling in the decennial census for the purposes of enumerating the population. Each of the previous 21 U.S. censuses has failed to count all persons. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were certain that the state population totals tallied for the first census in 1790 were wrong (Skerry 1992). To make matters worse, the census must do more than simply tally the number of people in the country; it must also report exactly where each of these people live. By any metric, this is a Herculean task. Indeed, enumerating and fixing geographically 100% of the population without some error is impossible.

In this article I outline the plan for Census 2000, define the political debate, and offer an assessment of the plan itself. I argue that deciding how to conduct the census has been, and will continue to be, an inherently political process, and that there are reasonable, scientific arguments against adjusting the census. I became interested in this issue during my tenure as an APSA Congressional Fellow, when I staffed the Subcommittee on the Census in the House of Representatives. Before I began my fellowship on Capitol Hill, I was suspicious of the argument against adjusting the census statistically. How could anyone possibly be against adjusting the census with statistical methods?

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 775 - 782
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2000

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

*

I would like to thank the following people for their input on this essay: David Freedman, Philip Stark, Bill Koetzle, Lara Chamberlain, David Flaherty, Tom Hofeller, Bernie Grofman, and the members of the departments of political science at Binghamton University and George Washington University. While these people significantly improved the final version of this essay, none bear responsibility for any remaining errors. I would also like to thank a number of people on Capitol Hill from the Subcommittee on the Census who made my stay most enjoyable: Tom Brierton, Tim Maney, Kelly Duquin, Jo Powers, Jennifer Safavian, Chip Walker, and Erin Yeatman.

References

Breiman, Leo. 1994. “The 1991 Census Adjustment: Undercount or Bad Data?” Statistical Science 9(4): 458–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lawrence D., Eaton, Morris L., Freedman, David A., Klein, Stephen P., Olshen, Richard A., Wachter, Kenneth W., Wells, Martin T., and Ylvisaker, Donald. 1999. “Statistical Controversies in Census 2000.” Jurimetrics 39(Summer): 347–75.Google Scholar
Connolly, Ceci. 1999. “Hastert Steps up to Leading Role.” The Washington Post, January 5, A1.Google Scholar
Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates. 1992. “Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted Versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal Estimates.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Fay, Robert E., Passel, Jeffrey S., and Robinson, J. Gregory. 1983. The Coverage of Population in the 1980 Census. No. HC80-E4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Evaluation and Research Series.Google Scholar
Hogan, Howard. 1993. “The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: Operations and Results.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(September): 1047–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prewitt, Kenneth. 1999. “Census 2000: Science Meets Politics.” Science, February 12, 935.Google Scholar
Skerry, Peter. 1992. “The Census Wars.” The Public Interest 106(Winter): 17–31.Google Scholar
Stark, P.B. 1999. “Differences Between the 1990 and 2000 Census Adjustment Plans, and Their Impact on Error.” Technical Report 550. Berkeley: Department of Statistics, University of California.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Report to Congress—The Plan for Census 2000 <http://www.census.gov/main/www/stat_activities.html>. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census..+Washington,+DC:+U.S.+Bureau+of+the+Census.>Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1999. Census 2000 Operational Plan Using Traditional Census-Taking Methods: Summary <http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/sum3.htm>. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census..+Washington,+DC:+Bureau+of+the+Census.>Google Scholar
Waite, Preston Jay, and Hogan, Howard. 1998. “Statistical Methodologies for Census 2000.” Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar