mahnmut: (Default)
[personal profile] mahnmut
We all know it's a problem.



This article from Brookings is a good place to start. It doesn't immediately throw accusations of gerrymandering but instead sorts the states according to how representative their districts are.

Both sides used to be happy enough with a round district centered on a city, because that had inner-city for Dems and a larger number of suburban voters they stood a chance with. Cities growing larger however, makes that an unfair way to draw boundaries: the bulls-eye is almost all Democratic and votes are wasted which could have gone to won more swing districts in the state. Dividing inner cities neatly in two is a fairer way (for big cities) and happily enough the Shortest Split Line tends to do that automatically.

Of course, we could make things even simpler and listen to what an impartial foreign outsider would likely have to say on the matter, namely that all partisan gerrymandering should be illegal, and all districting should be done by independent commissions, not lawmakers. But what do I know.
mahnmut: (Default)
[personal profile] mahnmut
Nothing riles up the conservative base like this.

What if the Census asked about firearms ownership?

A hypothetical questionnaire )

This made me crack up "Would your concern rise to such a level that you might refuse to fill out the long form Census questionnaire or even lie on the form to protect your privacy?"

Doing such a concern fren!

I can just see 'ol Clem looking fearfully at the census form... dabbing sweat from his brow as his eyes dart back and forth from the paper to his gun safe.

Should he answer truthfully!? Will the census police come and investigate? Would they ever find out? Of course they would, them government folks... they have ways of finding out.
Hand trembling, he touches his #2 pencil to the paper. Unable to control his fear-induced tremors Clem presses too hard and the tip of the pencil snaps leaving an ugly scar on the pristine white form. "Sheeeeeet", he cries out as he clutches his pearls. Now they will know for sure! They will come for him! He just knows it. The census police will know! They probably already do.

But wait... what is that noise!? A nearly imperceptible rattle of the door handle. They’re already here!!!

The horror! The abject horror!!!!
[identity profile] tniassaint.livejournal.com

Ahhhh the census.

All the rancor surrounding it are simply amusing and astounding. There is nothing wrong with census taking. There is nothing wrong with the questions being asked. As for the craziness regarding the encouragement that the US Census Bureau is giving to gay and lesbian couples to indicate that they are married; who really cares? Truth is that this information is not available to the public. The public moral fiber is not threatened in anyway and the data has little effect society’s acceptance or lace of acceptance of such issues. Truth is that the people that don’t support gay marriage still won’t support it just because the gay couple next door privately checked a box on a private form that will be counted and handled far from the public eye (at least for 72 years).

Maybe there will be some statistical release that indicates that the number of gay couples living in a self proclaimed state of matrimony is a larger percentage of the population than we had previously - again, so what? If you are a parent, parent your children as you see fit. These folk, the ones going off on this subject, these people will simply never accept same sex couples.

As for the government, if they want to gather marital status for statistical purposes and the determination of proper representation, I could care less. Issues like this will hardly matter to the purpose of the census. Most of the data is used for simple unrelated statics and demographics. It’s also Constitutionally required. Anyone claiming to be a Constitutionalist has to support the taking of the census.

As for accusations of people being “liars” if they are half of a same sex couple and they indicate they are “married” on the census; oh please! It is not as if this lends any credibility or credence to the status. Government has not place, no place at all, in defining the interpersonal relations of anyone. Marital questions and all marital supports, recognition and etc should be removed from government. Count the people in the residence. The selection of “married” on some form is only validating to the person checking it -  and I am certain they can validate this in their deeds without some form.

So what? Why should anyone give a crap about a gay couple checking married on a form that will not effect any sort of real change as a result of the mark?

Why should government even have any official recognition of the marital status of a couple?
[identity profile] futurebird.livejournal.com
In the US the 2010 Census is underway. I thought it would be informative to do a census here as well. I'm going to use the exact same questions the the US census uses. I recognize that there are many arguments about why these questions are flawed. I think that answering the question could be a jumping off point for talking about those flaws. So, fill out out census then share your thoughts on the question they use![Poll #1545696][Poll #1545696]
It is very quaint that the Census is still done on paper-- that is probably best since the digital divide remains wide. Collecting data in the same way for over 200 years has provided the US with a very reliable if incomplete picture of the people-- changing methods and questions now would pose risks. But, we must continue to evolve and change the questions to match the changing face of this country.

[identity profile] reflaxion.livejournal.com
Sometime last week, our 2010 Census form arrived in the mail. We're fairly young people, and neither of us had cause to fill out a census form before, so we didn't know what to expect. What we received, for the most part, seemed fairly simple and straightforward.

Then we reached Questions 8 and 9.

For me, it was easy enough. I'll be checking off "White" on these forms until "Translucent" officially becomes a race. For my girlfriend, who is Puerto Rican/Dominican, the question was a bit more confusing, particularly the part that claimed, "For this census, Hispanic origins are not races." This gave us pause; while quite fair-skinned, she never really identified herself as white, but all of the other options were clearly wrong.

We actually held off on answering for a day, as we looked for an answer to the question online. I had actually considered calling the U.S. Census help number. In the end, we determined that "White" was probably the answer to write down, and we did so. I congratulated her on officially no longer being a minority and we went on with our lives.

And here's the point... )
[identity profile] verytwistedmind.livejournal.com


Question #9 on the this year's census asks about your race. One of the boxes you can choose is "black," "African American," or "negro," all placed next to the same box.  

The word 'negro' has offended several people as the referenced article shows.

http://wcbstv.com/national/negro.census.form.2.1409469.html

Should the term Negro be phased out of the census? if so, shouldn't Caucasian be phased out as well since they are from Typology?

I dislike 'multi-racial' in the census. It's too inclusive. It means little, especially in America. I know people who have multi-European backgrounds who classify themselves as multi-racial.


[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html

This, my friends, is what calling the census an attempt to brainwash children and implying the all-powerful US government is a direct threat to your precious bodily fluids reaps.

I hope Bachmann is happy now, as she's getting her wish. This poor man is a victim of the fearmongering the Radicals have sown. There's a certain quote by a certain man that's worth quoting here: "If you say for years that the Jews are not even human and that Russians are subhuman, such an explosion is inevitable." It is in that sense that Bachmann's fearmongering is directly responsible for this man's death. Shame on the Radical Right.