5 ms·

This is important for understanding how gerrymandered a district is.

tharne 5y ago
> This is important for understanding how gerrymandered a district is. That's a bit circular. One of the main reasons that districts are so easy to gerrymander is precisely because there is so much rich census data that can be used to predict voting patterns.
- ironman1478 5y ago
  Its probably possible to gerrymander a state without this information? Sure, it would be harder (and probably less effective) but you could use proxy metrics to figure out the distribution of race within a state. I imagine I could use housing data as a proxy for example, given that property values are correlated with race. I don't have exact proof of that last statement, but it feels right. Also, I did some reading. Apparently the census has been asking these questions since 1790 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/race/ https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-questio.... Though, I imagine the nature of the question has changed over time.
- brimble 5y ago
  Parties and campaigns already buy & maintain huge private databases on this stuff. They wouldn't hesitate to buy slightly more to have that info, because gerrymandering is so powerful. Watchdogs and groups trying to fight gerrymandering (racially-tilted or otherwise) usually don't have as many resources. It's harder for the public to keep an eye on this without public data, while keeping it private-only barely inconveniences the most relevant bad actors.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The issue is specifically gerrymandering on the basis of race. Parties know their votes by precinct, those data are available. Apportionment of voting districts must be done by population, so the Census is necessary. Discrimination on the basis of race violates multiple Constitutional amendments and voting laws, for which enforcement requires clear knowledge of demographics. The justirications are somewhat involved, but not strictly circular. For a discussion of the background, from a conservative viewpoint, see: "Redistricting, Race, and the Voting Rights Act" (2010). This touches on the question multiple times, this passage captures much of the circumstance, though I recommend reading the full piece: [T]he South's swift and effective circumvention of the Voting Rights Act in the wake of its passage demonstrated the truth of what many civil-rights activists had argued: that merely providing access to the ballot was insufficient after centuries of slavery, another century of segregation, ongoing white racism, and persistent resistance to black political power. In the Deep South in 1969 (and beyond), the alternative to de facto reserved legislative seats for black candidates would have been the perpetuation of whites-only politics. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/redistricting-race-and-the-voting-rights-act https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/redistri...
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  This isn't true, each voting precinct reports vote totals each election. Demographic info adds almost no predictive value over this.
caymanjim 5y ago
That's not the purpose of the census, though. That's a political and social concern, and people can debate the value of that data and who should collect it, but it's not part of the Constitutional mandate to count the number of people.
- ironman1478 5y ago
  https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%20empowers%20the,Article%20I%2C%20Section%202).&text=The%20plan%20was%20to%20count,determine%20representation%20in%20the%20Congress https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/abo.... Unless I misunderstood your question and you meant to say that the race portion specifically is not.

> This is important for understanding how gerrymandered a district is. That's a bit circular. One of the main reasons that districts are so easy to gerrymander is precisely because there is so much rich census data that can be used to predict voting patterns.

ironman1478 5y ago
Its probably possible to gerrymander a state without this information? Sure, it would be harder (and probably less effective) but you could use proxy metrics to figure out the distribution of race within a state. I imagine I could use housing data as a proxy for example, given that property values are correlated with race. I don't have exact proof of that last statement, but it feels right. Also, I did some reading. Apparently the census has been asking these questions since 1790 https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/race/ https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-questio.... Though, I imagine the nature of the question has changed over time.
brimble 5y ago
Parties and campaigns already buy & maintain huge private databases on this stuff. They wouldn't hesitate to buy slightly more to have that info, because gerrymandering is so powerful. Watchdogs and groups trying to fight gerrymandering (racially-tilted or otherwise) usually don't have as many resources. It's harder for the public to keep an eye on this without public data, while keeping it private-only barely inconveniences the most relevant bad actors.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The issue is specifically gerrymandering on the basis of race. Parties know their votes by precinct, those data are available. Apportionment of voting districts must be done by population, so the Census is necessary. Discrimination on the basis of race violates multiple Constitutional amendments and voting laws, for which enforcement requires clear knowledge of demographics. The justirications are somewhat involved, but not strictly circular. For a discussion of the background, from a conservative viewpoint, see: "Redistricting, Race, and the Voting Rights Act" (2010). This touches on the question multiple times, this passage captures much of the circumstance, though I recommend reading the full piece: [T]he South's swift and effective circumvention of the Voting Rights Act in the wake of its passage demonstrated the truth of what many civil-rights activists had argued: that merely providing access to the ballot was insufficient after centuries of slavery, another century of segregation, ongoing white racism, and persistent resistance to black political power. In the Deep South in 1969 (and beyond), the alternative to de facto reserved legislative seats for black candidates would have been the perpetuation of whites-only politics. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/redistricting-race-and-the-voting-rights-act https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/redistri...
bpodgursky 5y ago
This isn't true, each voting precinct reports vote totals each election. Demographic info adds almost no predictive value over this.

caymanjim 5y ago

That's not the purpose of the census, though. That's a political and social concern, and people can debate the value of that data and who should collect it, but it's not part of the Constitutional mandate to count the number of people.

ironman1478 5y ago
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%20empowers%20the,Article%20I%2C%20Section%202).&text=The%20plan%20was%20to%20count,determine%20representation%20in%20the%20Congress https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/abo.... Unless I misunderstood your question and you meant to say that the race portion specifically is not.