Vol. 4, No. 826W
Counting: An Insight Into How Politicians Think
By Allan R. Andrews
American Reporter Correspondent
Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON -- When it comes to counting votes, politicians
take pride in their skills. When it comes to counting people,
they fail, largely because they're preoccupied with counting votes.
President Clinton this week endorsed a plan to count Americans,
a
census plan his critics have lashed out against in a fashion that
underscores our worst cynical conclusion about our Politician-dominated
government: It not only doesn't know how to count; it doesn't
know how to think.
The President's endorsement picks up where last fall's debate
left off. The Clinton administration basically wants to augment
the U.S. Census Bureau's decennial head-count of Americans with
modern statistical sampling techniques to account for those who
are often missed.
Many of the president's critics in Congress oppose such a plan.
In fact, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in February filed
a suit in federal District Court to block the sampling approach.
Gingrich's suit, filed on behalf of the House of Representatives
but spurred by conservative Republicans in that body, contends
that sampling is unconstitutional and violates the founding fathers'
insistence that every person be counted.
For the record, the Census Bureau estimates about 8
million Americans were not counted during the 1990 census.
The Constitution calls for an "actual enumeration" of
the population every 10 years.
Those calling for such a head-counting enumeration might be considered
strict defenders of the Constitution.
In an editorial last summer, however, Colorado's Rocky Mountain
News called this "a not very honorable reason."
What makes such thinking dishonorable? The conservatives behind
the attempt to block sampling, the editorial said, simply fear
the sampling would favor the current minority in Congress by adding
more voters to the Democrats' registration rolls.
President Clinton, not to be outdone in appearing honorable, couched
his endorsement for "the best, most up-to-date scientific
methods" in the rhetoric of democracy, saying, "An inaccurate
census distorts our understanding of the needs of our people and
in many respects diminishes the quality of our democracy."
The President's statement about the census was made during discussions
in Houston on Tuesday (Houston enjoys the dubious distinction
of being the nation's "most undercounted" city, according
to census reports). Clinton's argument emphasizes the head-count's
"importance to the lives and work of all Americans."
While the President included congressional reapportionment
in his list of outcomes from an accurate census, it was barely
noticeable among his litany of benefits the census provides for
those in education, government and journalism.
Democrats claim Gingrich and others are attempting to block sampling
because such a technique aims to account for voters the critics
of sampling would just as soon not have counted.
The picture is clearly political and has little to do with defending
the Constitution or with extending democratic ideals. It has little
to do with one's trust of modern sampling statistics.
It's all about votes. Based on the 1990 numbers, the Republicans
got 'em and the Democrats didn't. The Democrats would like that
to change.
The Constitution calls for a census to rightly appropriate the
number of members of Congress, and, as almost every American knows,
8 million uncounted people could change several elections for
seats in the House of Representatives - which, incidentally, is
currently controlled by the Republicans. The Democrats would like
that to change, too.
The argument that sampling is unconstitutional raises some interesting
speculation. Were such an argument upheld by the courts, it could
raise questions about whether the Nielsen ratings or the Gallup
polls and their ilk stand as violations of the Constitution. Where
would political consultants and television programmers be without
their sampling-dependent polls?
It could also jeopardize a vast proportion of current scientific
research, much of which is based on modern sampling theory. (Which
holds that a properly researched and defined small "sample"
of any large body of objects or people provides an accurate representation
of the larger number.) To use a mundane example, if sampling were
ruled unconstitutional, General Electric might be barred from
testing only a sample of its light bulbs and required to test
every single bulb it manufactures.
The argument that sampling is unconstitutional seems
absurd.
As strained if not as absurd, however, is the argument that the
President and the Democrats are seeking a more accurate census
to ensure "providing federal funds for crucial services."
This hardly seems the route of a party that has emphasized its
streamlining and efficiency of spending.
The census itself is a costly undertaking for taxpayers and includes
a multi-million dollar private advertising contract aimed at getting
the word out to as many Americans as possible.
Both the contentions of the sampling opponents and the concerns
of the democracy extenders are flawed, cynical insults to the
intelligence of Americans.
Opposing sampling throws a pre-scientific mentality into the mix
of political science. Wrapping the census in terms of scientifically
extending democracy and adding benefits to the poor hides a sophisticated
attempt at gerrymandering.
Furthermore, the presumption on both sides that the
uncounted population will fall into the ledger of the Democrats
is unproven; it may even embrace many who've flocked to the Sunbelt,
a traditional Republican stronghold.
The census should be designed to provide as full, accurate and
justified a picture of the American people as can be had.
As frequently happens in these debates, the public loses if either
political argument wins the day. Unfortunately, there is enough
truth to either side to give an appearance of rightness to both.
Sampling can be manipulated. The poor do suffer from being eliminated
from the census in what may be a subtle violation of civil rights.
As some editorial writers have urged, the nation needs an independent,
scientific auditor to operate and tally the census to assure the
result is accurate, just and allows political chips to fall where
they may.
I'd like a census of Congress to discover how many would stop
counting votes long enough to agree to that.
Allan R. Andrews is a news editor
and freelance writer working in
Washington, D.C. He can be contacted at allan.andrews@reporters.net