to service in the lower House of the republic. As evidence, consider the following observation about the census made by a first term congressman (named, ironically enough, Daniel Webster):
We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective, especially since in the end this is not a survey. Its a random survey.
Can flat earthers and book burners be far behind? On these occasions I think fondly of Heinlein‘s suggestion that citizens be required to demonstrate some mathematical proficiency in order to vote.
2 comments
May 20, 2012 at 9:52 am
Jonathan Weinstein
I’m a bit confused. I read recently that a major problem with the census was that using statistical techniques to help with the census is illegal, even if it would be cheaper and more accurate. What I heard is that they are legally required to count every person, and not take a random sample. This is its own form of innumeracy, since counting every person is in fact impossible and inferential techniques would sometimes be more accurate.
May 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm
rvohra
Ah, you need to keep up with the arguments deployed to kill the US census bureau. That random samples are not scientific is the most recent. The full list would make you a firm believer in Barnum’s advice about the public. Here is a sample:
1) Its unconstitutional. This is just wrong. You would have to accept some convoluted Derrida like reading of the relevant article to conclude otherwise. The fact that the Cato Institute accepts it as constitutional is good enough for me.
2) It is counter to biblical teaching. Recall what happened when Kind David defied the almighty and conducted a census.
3) Consider the heinous way in which the Nazi’s used the census.
This is not to say that the US census bureau should be immune to scrutiny. I think it right and proper to debate the merits of the questions asked, the methods used etc.