In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:05:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 4:21:26 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:58:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I
remember that they would start hiring and training 4 or 6 months in
advance. This year, my friend... I have to ask her again. She also
applied to be a contact tracer for Covid. She took online training for
one or both of them and then didn't hear back for a long time, but
anyhow, the question is, when it says in 2010 "Enumerators begin
door-to-door operations to collect census data" were they really out
there going to people's doors on the last day of April.

I'm talking about 2010 here. You suggested "above" they weren't ready to
go on the first day.

They would have started around that time this year, but it was put off
because of Covid.

I know that.




No, because of Covid it started around early August. But why do they have
to have started in April?

Question of fact about 2010.



I hate to say it but I was depressed and hadn't returned my census form
and somoene called me, someone I knew. If I could remember who it was,
I could and would call him for more details, but I can't remember. Other
than that, I don't know how to find more about this.
This year from what I can tell it was two months, maybe a little less,
starting in early August, ending early Oct. It probably varied a bit by
region of the country. But the real issue here is what percentage was
completed this year versus previous years and if it's substantially
different, does it make any difference in the result. They will never get
to 100%, there will always be a few percent left. That is then filled in
using estimates and models based on the 97% or whatever they have. So
if one year they get to 98%, while another year they get to 96%, not clear
that it really matters.

I agree with all of this, and I don't expect the census to be 100%.

They are saying that they've been to 99% of all the residences in
Maryland,

I suspect what that said is that 99% is complete, meaning they have census
data for 99%.

In Maryland I believe they said what I said.


but they did that partly by loosening standards on what is
visiting a home. Used to be, on I forget, the second or third trip, the
doorknocker could talk to neighbors and if they said how many were
living there (even if they were occasinally wrong) it counted as a
visit. They weakened that to allow it on the first visit. (My friend
went to some places 3 times before finding a resident who was home and
answsed the door, but she's very diligent. She also liked the job, at
least sometimes, from the interesting places she got to go. One was a
house built in the 1800's for the visit by some German king or
something.)

All that is wrong, AFAIK there is no change in how the census data is recorded.
It's always been that after some number of attempts at an address if they
can't be contacted, then they use proxies, ie a neighbor or landlord.

No, it's not wrong. The number of required visits has been lowered.

You have a cite for that?

No. But it's what I read from a reliable source. If I have the money
in my budget, I'll have my staff prepare a report on this.




That's mostly because some people just refuse all attempts, which is why
they just didn't do it online or via mail.

No. They often have sucess on later visits when they don't on the first
or on the 2nd.


Even though she lives there, she saw a lot of streets she hadn't seen.
OTOH, if I did it, I think t hey would assign me around here and I've
been down almost every street already.

But I digress:

What I don't want isn't for it to be 100% but for it not to favor
Republican areas at the direction of a Republican. I cetainly didn't
suspect H.W.Bush of doing that, as we all know, stumpie has shown plenty
of signs of trying to corrupt the Census. (For others, originnally in
June or so it was the census bureau, his own appointee I suspect, who
wanted it extended that month. Then something made them change their
mind. Maybe someone from a state that was going lose a Repuiblican
district pointed out to them how they could increase Republican
representation by shortening the

There were two issues there. One was ending it early and I agree, that looked
like Trump figuring that illegal aliens and the like would be more resistant
to being counted, so ending it early would count less of them. But the census
has been completed now to a high enough extent that this no longer is a
significant issue.

It's been completed to a high enough extent when they spend as much time
doorknocking as they did in the past,

It's ridiculous to base completion success on the number of door knocking
attempts as opposed to the completion numbers.

In just about every other department or bureau under trump when they
change the rules you correctly presume they are doing something crooked
for trump's partison or pecuniary advantage. Now all of a sudden you
trust the Census wouldn't do that!

Ahd it;s not just door
knocking, the census has sent mailer after mailer to the the addresses
that have not responded.

Do you have a source for that? And how does that differ from prior
censuses.





unless one can show a convincing
reason why less doorknocking is not needed. And I must have mentined
in this thread or the other how even in 10, maybe 20 or moe of the days
the census bureau says they were working, they were winding down
instead, more than once. Before Sept 30 and the entire 15 days of
Octobter. and those days count only partially,

It's all irrelevant. What is relevant is what percent COMPLETION they
achieved this year versus previous years and from what I've seen, it

They have redefined what completion is. How many times do I have to say
that. I'm not reading any further. You've been reasonable for a week or
two and now you're back to your querulous, quarrelsome self.

Micky

looks about the same. Also factor in that Covid made this year much harder,
so a number even close to prior years is a tremendous success. And you
don't need 100%, like in all years, they then use statistical modeling to
fill in what's missing because people will not comply.






The other is Trump wants to exclude illegals from the count. I think he's right
on that, it's not what the framers would have intended. On the other hand the

Not only that, none of the census questions say who is an alien and who
is not, who is illegal and who is not.

You're right, Trump lost that battle, but it should. Why is it important
we know if a son is adopted or biological, if you feel your ancestory is from
Spain or Brazil, but not if someone is here on a visa, illegally or a citizen?



They have an emergency hearing
before the USSC to get permission to exclude illegals but they have no
bovious way to know who they are, and if, IF, there is an indirect way
it will take a long time and will be inaccrate. I hope the SC justices
ridicule the admin lawyer or his client, but they probably won't

Well, that's a good point. I know that's going on but haven't paid any
attention to it. But you're right, it sure looks like a moot point now
to me, IDK why the courts are even still hearing it.





Constitution says all people, and I don't think Trump is likely to prevail in the courts. That is one of of those conservative things, ruling on what the
Constitution says, the letter of the law. If there were some contemporary
discussion at the time showing otherwise, I would be persuaded. But there

AIUI at the time, no one was in the country illegally. There were no
rules against entering, no Ellis Island, no Castle Clinton (well there
was, but it was a defense implacemnet, not immigration). Some of the
news stories say that we haven't excluded illegals for 220 years, and
I'm pretty sure they're sincere when they say that, but none existed for
about a century. Maybe the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 created the
first ones, assuming some excluded Chinese managed to get in anyhow.
Was there anything earlier?

AFAIK we haven't excluded illegals or anyone from the count because the
Constitution says to count people, with no regard to status.