Down With the Count
  by Thomas Lindaman (2/26/10)

Complete the Census or else? - There are a number of ways to get people to do something that needs to be done. In some cases, it’s easy as asking. When things are important, you can either appeal to a person’s sense of duty or use less savory methods, like being stuck in the back seat of a compact car between Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. And, believe me, you don’t want to know how they got back there.

With the United States Census this year, there is a series of radio ads trying to appeal to our civic duty as a means to protect our ability to spend money on teachers and road repairs. Maybe it’s me, though, but the way they’ve gone about it sounds more like a threat than an honest appeal to our better natures. The tone of the ads are such that the implication is that if you don’t file your census, you’re going to hinder children’s education, prevent potholes from being fixed, and other things more horrible than that. I’m surprised they haven’t gone straight for, “If you don’t fill out your census, we’ll break your kneecaps.”

Let me say at the outset that I have no issue with the census. I’m not anti-government; I’m anti-stupid government, and a decision not to fill out the census as some sort of stance against The Man is truly silly. Granted, some of the questions rumored to be on this year’s census forms are more invasive than having Geraldo Rivera film a colonoscopy, but answering a question about how many people live in your house isn’t that bad.

Having said that, the census commercials come off as more than a little ham-fisted, not to mention more than a little misleading. The reason the Founding Fathers set up the census in the first place is to get an accurate headcount of the number of people living in the country so that Congressional representation could be established. Since then, the census has become a great tool in figuring out just how many people are getting screwed by the federal government, but that’s only a side benefit.

The underlying sentiment of the commercials is that without accurate census numbers, there won’t be accurate representation in Congress and, thus, your state might not get the money it would need to take care of basic needs. This is true to a point. Accurate census numbers give a great snapshot at our population growth, which has a direct impact on the number of Representative each state gets in the House of Representatives and the number of Congressional Districts a state has. It also has an impact on the number of Electoral College votes a state has, as each state gets a number of votes equal to the total number of Congressional representatives, House and Senate, a state has.

Where the census commercials get it wrong is that representation may not have that much of an impact on how much money gets back to a state. Just because you have a Representative doesn’t mean he or she is going to be able to get the federal gravy train heading back to your state Capitol. Your one representative is one out of over 400, and if you’re in the minority party, the likelihood that you’ll get a significant chunk of the federal government pie is less than the likelihood that Joe Biden will resign the Vice Presidency to Glenn Beck. Then again, we might be able to trick him into that…

Also, the “you need to fill out the census so you get represented” argument falls flat because there’s no guarantee that the person who gets elected will even bother to think about the needs of the state. All you need to do is get elected once and you’re pretty much set for life unless you or your party does something incredibly stupid. And we all know how infrequently that happens. Seriously, how many times can John Murtha make statements that make George W. Bush sound like Albert Einstein and still keep his job? Though, from what I’m hearing from that neck of the woods, that number may be shrinking faster than we think.

This brings me to one other aspect of the census commercials that they get wrong. Since the census tracks population and Congressional representation is based on population, representation in this nation would benefit population inflation more than population deflation, thus causing frustration. (Sorry. I was channeling Jesse Jackson there for a moment.) In other words, areas of the country experiencing population decreases, like my home state of Iowa, would likely see less representation with an accurate census count, while areas of the country with exploding populations, like California, would see more representation. I’m sorry, but I don’t like the one Nancy Pelosi we already have in power, let alone the Pelosi clones that could come from an accurate census.

If the Census Bureau really wants us to participate in this year’s census, I have a suggestion. Try a little kindness. The tactic you’ve taken so far is as warm and fuzzy as a dead porcupine. Don’t scare us into participating. Add to that the misleading statements from the ads you’ve put out so far, and you have a campaign that is destined for failure. Fear and dishonesty are never the right way to go to get us to do something. Instead, go with the tried and true method that has worked for hundreds of years.

Bribery. Ask Mary Landrieu for advice if you’re not sure how to do it.

And that’s the Bottom Line.

Thomas Lindaman

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of the USA Sentinel.
Content is Copyright ©2006-2010 the individual authors.