Rejoinder to Anderson and Fienberg

PS - Political Science and Politics

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 793-799

  Brunell, Thomas L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007344221     PISSN: 10490965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/420916     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Anderson, Margo. 1988. The American Census: A Social History. New York: Yale University Press.
2. _, Beth O. Daponte, Stephen E. Fienberg, Joseph B. Kadane, Bruce D. Spencer, and Dwayne L. Steffey. 2000. "Sampling-based Adjustment of the 2000 Census: A Balanced Perspective." Jurimetrics 40(3): 341-56.
3. _, and Stephen E. Fienberg. 1999. Who Counts? The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage.
4. _, and Stephen E. Fienberg. 2000. "Census 2000 Controversies." Chance 13(4).
5. Belin, Thomas R., and John E. Rolph. 1994. "Can We Reach Consensus on Census Adjustment?" Statistical Science 9(4): 486-508.
6. Breiman, Leo. 1994. "The 1991 Census Adjustment: Undercount or Bad Data." Statistical Science 9(4): 458-75.
7. Brown, Lawrence D., Morris L. Eaton, David A. Freedman, Stephen P. Klein, Richard A. Olshen, Kenneth W. Wachter, Martin T. Wells, and Donald Ylvisaker. 1999. "Statistical Controversies in Census 2000." Jurimetrics 39(Summer): 347-75.
8. Brunell, Thomas L. 2000. "Using Statistical Sampling to Estimate the U.S. Population: The Methodological and Political Debate over Census 2000." PS: Political Science and Politics 33(December).
9. Choi, C.Y., D.G. Steel, and T.J. Skinner. 1998. "Adjusting the 1986 Australian Census Count for Undernumeration." Survey Methodology 14:173-89.
10. Choldin, Harvey. 1994. Looking for the Last Percent: The Controversy over Census Undercounts. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
11. Citro, Constance F., and Michael L. Cohen, eds. 1985. The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Methodology in 1990. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Cohen, Michael L., Andrew A. White, and Keith F. Rust, eds. 1999. Measuring a Changing Nation: Modem Methods for the 2000 Census. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates. 1992a. "Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal Estimates, 1992. Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates, August 7, 1992." Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
14. _. 1992b. "Additional Research on Accuracy of Adjusted versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal Estimates, 1992. Addendum to Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates, November 25, 1992." Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
15. Daley, William M. 2000. U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley Delegates Decision to Census Bureau on Adjusting Census 2000. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
16. Diamond, Ian, and Chris Skinner. 1994 "Comment on Three Papers on Census Adjustment." Statistical Science 9(4): 508-10.
17. Eagles, Charles. 1990. Democracy Delayed: Congressional Reapportionment and the Urban-Rural Conflict of the 1920s. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
18. Edmonston, Barry, and Charles Schultze, eds. 1995. Modernizing the U.S. Census: Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Ericksen, Eugene P., Stephen E. Fienberg, and Joseph B. Kadane. 1994. "Comment on Three Papers on Census Adjustment." Statistical Science 9(4): 511-15.
20. Kadane, Joseph B., Michael M. Meyer, and John W. Tukey. 1999. "Yule's Association Paradox and Ignored Stratum Heterogeneity in Capture-Recapture Studies." Journal of the American Statistical Association 94:855-59.
21. Mulry, Mary H., and Bruce D. Spencer. 1993. "Accuracy of the 1990 Census and Undercount Adjustments." Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(September): 1080-92.
22. Obenski, Sally M., and Robert E. Fay. 2000. "Analysis of CAPE. Findings on PES Accuracy at Various Geographic Levels, 2000." Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of the Census, auth. Kenneth Prewitt. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
23. Prewitt, Kenneth. 2000. Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of the Census. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
24. Skerry, Peter. 2000. Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
25. Stark, P.B. 1999. "Differences between the 1990 and 2000 Census Adjustment Plans, and Their Impact on Error." Technical Report 550. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
26. Steel, David. 1994. "Comment on Three Papers on Census Adjustment." Statistical Science 9(4): 517-19.
27. Steffey, Duane L., and Norman M. Bradburn, eds. 1994. Counting People in the Information Age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.