Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-bnl7t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-12T00:30:42.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Is There Still a Controversy About Adjusting theCensus 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; thedebate over adjusting the census isnot”.

  2. The computer coding errorin 1990 would not have erroneously shifted anycongressional seats has adjusted data been used forreapportionment.

  3. In March2001, the Census Bureau announced that it was “unable toconclude … that the adjusted Census 2000 data are moreaccurate forredistricting.”

  4. The CensusBureau has refused to release the adjusted 2000 censusdata.

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

Information

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

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