Subject: Re: [EL] Census apportionment totals versus announced national totals
From: Michael P McDonald
Date: 12/21/2010, 9:35 AM
To: election-law 

The Census Bureau examined counting the overseas civilian population. They concluded it was not feasible to conduct an accurate enumeration. A report was released in 2004, I believe. (Sorry, I am traveling and can't easily dig up the files.)

The Federal Voting Assistance Program is re-examining this issue. They may be able to produce a count of the overseas civilians for their purposes that does not need to be as precise as the Census Bureau.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University 
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Hess <douglasrhess@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Census apportionment totals versus announced national	totals


Thanks. So no method for other overseas citizens: Utah's issue or
others? Or is there a policy of not counting any overase but military
for other reasons?

Interesting that this moves things by so much. Will be interesting to
see if in 2011 or 2012 military in Iraq and Afghanistan come home, how
this changes things (not for apportionment, but for ACS counts, etc.).

Doug

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:06 PM,  <john.k.tanner@gmail.com> wrote:

Correct. The apportionment pop. includes the overseas military 

and federal employees and dependents

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Hess <douglasrhess@gmail.com>
Sender: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:58:27
To: election-law<election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Subject: [EL] Census apportionment totals versus announced 

national totals


If you look at Table 1 on the link below, the total population for
apportionment is 309,183,463, which is about 400,000 larger than the
announced population (on the front page of the census website. Any
thoughts as to why? Since DC is not included in apportionment, you
would suspect that apportionment is lower, not higher.

So, I belive this is because of overseas military. Anybody know if
this is right and how this works? The press conference touched on
this, but not very clearly.

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/apportionment/apport.html

Doug Hess
202-277-6400 (cell)

The information contained in this email is confidential and may
contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended
recipient(s). Access to this email by anyone else is 

unauthorized. If

you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law


_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law


_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law