Internet Articles (2015)
March 7, 2001
Redistricting by statistical sampling dies a bittersweet death.
the most thorough census in over a decade...and a margin of error of 1%
or less, the liberals are crying at at least 3,400,000 poor were missed.
The high court,
which this time had little problem reading, or understanding, the Constitution,
made it clear to the Clinton Administration, that they could not use stasticial sampling to realign congressional districts
since the Constitution is very clear that actual people have to be counted.
That did not
stop Bill Clinton, however, since as President (and now as a private
citizen), Clinton saw himself above the law. The task of using
"estimated" population counts instead of actual population counts
fell on then Commerce Secretary William "count the dead"
Daley. When Daley resigned his post to become the campaign
manager for Al "steal the votes" Gore, the baton was
passed down to the head of the Census Bureau, Kenneth Prewitt, who eagerly attempted to implement it...very carefully, though, so as
not to alert the preoccupied Republicans. Prewitt was attempting,
when his tenure at the Census Bureau expired on January 20, and
he was replaced by William Barron, to concoct a scheme to "adjust"
or "pad" the numbers using a smoke and mirrors method of estimating
population called the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation [ACE] in historically
Democratic districts. (They did this because they felt those districts
would be appreciative enough of the extra seats at the public feeding
trough that there would be no loud cries of census tampering.
Here is how
it worked. Using "magic math," the Democrats
decided that they must have missed about 20% of the minority population
in the United States. They knew that had to be true because they've
been telling themselves that there are somewhere between 2 or 3 million
homeless people in the country (even though less than a 600 thousand have
ever been accounted for). In reality, they did a sampling in several urban
areas and then analyzed their data for ethnic definitions. Based
on the population in these key urban areas, they concluded that, nationwide,
they had to have missed 20% of all the minorities within all of those
suburban and rural areas.
for what they termed was poor counting (which was actually the most thorough
census ever conducted in the United States) Prewitt authorized
the Census Bureau to "adjust" the numbers to reflect
the demographics in the sampling. Each minority
man, woman and child was counted as 1.2 people. Then, they decided they
had overcounted every white middle class home. So, for each census form
they had received from a white family, or at least a family which did
not identify themselves as either Black or Hispanic, they reduced the
value of each member of those households from "1" to .92, or
roughly 9/10th of a person for each person they had counted, reducing
the white population by almost 10%.
what I just said for a minute. Even though they
had, in their possession, census forms which clearly, precisely, and exactly,
enumerated exactly how many white citizens lived in each of the homes
on Census forms returned to the Census Bureau, the Census Bureau decided
there weren't that many white people. Yet, with respect to
minority citizens who do may not even exist, the Clinton Commerce Department the Census Bureau, decided there were at least 20% more minorities
than reported their existence. Clinton's appointees decided, for political
reasons, to ignore people they didn't want to count because they couldn't
be counted on to vote the way the liberals wantedthem to vote, and artifically
created, on paper, people who don't exist specifically to skew congressional
districts in such a way that Democrats will always get elected.
Daley, and Clinton tried to do (just as Al Gore's Florida
"recount" had nothing to do with "counting" votes
but "recasting" votes) was "recast" the 2000 census
specifically to justify a federal plan to realign Congressional districts
in such a way that incumbent Republicans would lose their seats--and Democrats
would gain them. I guess that is the next best thing to winning an
election...and just as effective.
When they got caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar, Prewitt's people insisted they missed 3,400,000 people and were just trying to include them. My question is, if the Census Bureau knew they missed 3,400,000 people, then they have to have some idea where these people are. They should have sent their census-takers "there" to count them. They couldn't because, quite frankly, those people just don't exis--or, if they do, they don't want to be "represnted."
two years after the Supreme Court told them they couldn't use statistical
sampling to realign congressional districts, the liberals are screaming
once again that the uncaring Republicans are disenfranchising minorities
once again by denying them representation in Conress. It is the old race
card with a new twist. Using the same old spin that they used for 8 years,
the liberals have tried to make this a civil rights issue instead of a
March 6, 2001 Commerce Secretary Don Evans barred the use of "adjusted"
census figures for remapping congressional districts (even though the
Washington Post doesn't think that decision will be made until sometime
who lives in, or around, any major urban center with heavy minority populations
will likely recall that when the census was being conducted, the Clinton
Administration's Census Bureau spent millions of dollars advertising
the "get out and be counted" messageon minority-owned or controlled
radio and TV stations, telling their audiences that if they did not get
counted, they would loose their ""fair share" of the entitlement
dollars taht would be spent over the next decade.
It is not likely that too many minorities were missed. In fact, it is very likely, with Bill "count the dead" Daley at the helm of the Clinton Commerce Department, a good many long deceased minorities--particularly in Cook County, Illinois--were counted.
Once again, you have my two cents worth on this subject.