If the current 61% response rate stands - and without an enumeration campaign (like after every census) - this census will count around 200 million people.

When the accurate figure should be around 325 million.

Predictably, response rates tend to be higher in the blue states - with one big exception: New York.

It's likely that the severity of the Covid crisis there this spring led to their 56% response rate (thus far).

If that holds, New York may lose another 2 seats - on top of the 2 seats it'll likely lose due to slow-growing population. That would leave them 23 seats.

Thanks for posting this.

If they really wanted to get 'er done, they could start by hiring competent workers and don't mean just the enumerators/door knockers, I'm talking about the out of state supervisors and regional clueless folks who have never even glanced at a map before designing field operations.

I worked the last decennial census and it was a clusterf* from the start all the way to the end and I worked five successive operations. I refer to it as the highest paying, pencil-pushing babysitting job that followed me home, moved into my house and assaulted me at all hours of the day and night.

Poor design of field ops and personnel incompetence made it far more of an ordeal than it should have been. On top of that, timing and expectations were not realistic most of the time due to logistics. It's more than the challenge of PO box use in rural areas, I lived in many areas where you had to have one because there is no delivery, even in town so the questionnaires have to be hand delivered. This time there is an online option but there isn't widespread online access, especially on the rez. Issues on the rez are another thing though I hear ads encouraging census response on the Native broadcasts and in the nearby cities' radio.

They just need more time to conduct the whole thing out here. We've a large landed state and getting from one address to the next can take up to an hour and it may tale an hour to get to the census area assigned which means it takes a while to get the work done.

The dilapidated and small homes that I saw near the railway were pretty sad, especially when I saw people actually living in them.

It didn't even look like there were roads leading to them, much of the time.

I got annoyed at somebody here a few months ago for complaining about an inner-city residence that looked like a luxurious mansion in comparison.

to see less than adequate housing along the tracks and for blocks around. Trains are loud and regular, carry all kinds of scary stuff that falls off and so its a social justice/environmental justice situation.

Many around here are not attached to convenience or cosmetics, Mother Nature rules the place, we just try to keep her from killing us, many options for shelter are put to use and usually within one's means, which are pretty spare in these parts as well. We have resorts, ranches and trophy homes that look like the pictures in the magazines and then there are the rest of us who live on and in what we are able to get. Resourcefulness is the name of the survival game. At some point, aesthetics don't matter as much as some are lead to believe.

... those small homes with broken windows and such.

I looked for pictures of those homes on the internet a few minutes ago, figuring that SOMEBODY surely took pics or videos at some point, but had no luck.

Lots of internet pics of fancy and large homes in Montana, though!

Chicago was interesting too. Some sections reminded me of this Blues Brothers scene, but even worse because the train passed within TOUCHING DISTANCE of many buildings.