Census will result in undercount

Stand up and be counted. Or at least sit down and fill out the form. With the 2000 census upon us, it is quite important not so much that the people let their presence be known but more so that all people be counted. Though the government has spent millions upon millions of dollars on print ads and television commercials to make sure the people are aware of the ramifications of not filling out the census forms, they have failed to address the larger issue. Their means of measure is inherently flawed.

The major issue at hand is the accuracy of the current system of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the citizens of America. The form of appraisal that the Census Bureau utilizes at present — what the Constitution calls an "actual enumeration" — fails miserably to satisfactorily represent the people of the United States. The census of 1990 left 1.8 percent of the American populace uncounted (up from 1.2 percent in the 1980 census).

As insignificant and ultimately acceptable a sliver of the population this might seem at first glance, upon further examination, the current census system's egregious insufficiencies — particularly when attempting to represent certain minority groups in the tossed salad that is the United States — are made clear. The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census reported in 1997 that "children, renters (particularly in rural areas), and racial and ethnic minorities were significantly undercounted. Among those, the 1990 census missed 4.4 percent of African Americans, 5.0 percent of Hispanics, and 12.2 percent of American Indians living on reservation, but only 0.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites."

These inconsistencies not only indicate the under—representation of various minority groups in American society but also point to a possible undercount of the population of certain areas of the United States. As such, questions about the misappropriation of funds (although not necessarily with specific intent) as well as redistricting arise.

A solution that has been presented to Congress and has been argued before the Supreme Court is one that is both simple and more cost effective than the current state of affairs. The undercounts of the Census Bureau are the result of an inefficient organization that relies heavily on citizens responding to mail-in forms. It seems that it will be necessary to buttress, if not completely replace, the current census format with the use of sampling if one is to acquire something on par with an "actual enumeration." Provided a large enough random sample or, more to the point, enough random samples are used, the Census Bureau can acquire statistics that assess American society more accurately than the shoddy yardstick that is currently employed.

The problem of (at least) the 2000 census not utilizing such a valuable tool to developing a more accurate and fair picture of America can be traced in part to partisan politics. In 1998, the Clinton administration challenged the federal ban on the use of sampling only to be opposed by the Republican—controlled Congress. This is because if sampling were used in the current census, then the Republicans would likely lose House seats to redistricting. In protest, they voted to withhold half of the funding for the then-upcoming census drive. The other half would then be apportioned after the sampling issue was resolved in the Supreme Court. In effect, the House Republicans held the census hostage until their demands were met. Yet again, the actions of public servants promoted their own ends instead of those of the public.

The issue of redistricting is but one side to this issue, as distribution of funding integral to the future of American society is also determined with this measure. If the Commerce Department's statistics are correct, then the census does not bode well for the quality of education that a student not of a "non—Hispanic white" descent might receive. Without sufficient funding, such students will be deprived of adequate educational opportunities that will allow for them to compete in a global economy. Similarly, the funding necessary for developing a competent police force or something as mundane as a properly functioning city drainage system might be at stake as well.

With the current use of the hand form for determining the statistical breakdown of the United States as well as how funds will be distributed, I guarantee you there will be an undercount. As such, there will be an unfair distribution of resources and misrepresentation of the people in Congress. As sampling is itself used to determine the presence of an undercount, it would seem wiser for the government to use this statistical tool in the first place. Thus, it would save the people time, money and the concern that they are not getting their proper share.

This has been my sometimes less than humble opinion.