Obama has wasted little time in securing his power base by seizing control of the US Census Bureau.
For the first time in American history the bureau will be overseen by the White House, in secret, and not by the Commerce Department where it was subject to public and bi-partisan oversight.
Former co-chairman of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board Ken Blackwell warns that “this action will have enormous implications on the balance of political power in the country”.
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2009/02/17/a_chicago-style_census?page=full
Obama will be able to manipulate electoral boundaries and apportion spending in accordance with Democrat requirements thus consolidating his voter base and extending his hold on power.
Will we see a future attempt by him to extend his term beyond the current maximum of two terms, thus emulating the recent success of that other socialist demagogue Hugo Chavez who can now be re-elected ad infinitum?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-venezuela17-2009feb17,0,7705825.story
Obama’s pre-election promise to “drastically increase government openness with a new level of transparency and accountability” is sounding increasingly hollow.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/obama-promises-transparency-openness

KMB

'Obama’s pre-election promise to “drastically increase government openness with a new level of transparency and accountability” is sounding increasingly hollow.'

Surely you know that it was only the gullible who believed this.

And sadly more become gullible with each new born :(

KMB,

Your opening post speaks of the potential for the executive government of the US to "manipulate electoral boundaries and apportion spending in accordance with Democrat requirements" as a consequence of the transfer of the oversight of the US Census Bureau from "the Commerce Department where it was subject to public and bi-partisan oversight" to "the White House", where that oversight may be exercised in secret.

I have read the links you have supplied. The first link, to Ken Blackwell's article 'A Chicago-Style Census', opens with the statement "The census is one of the most important functions performed by the [US] federal government because the integrity [of] our representative democracy depends on it". Further into the article Blackwell says: "When I was co-chairman of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, the left fought unsuccessfully to introduce “statistical sampling” into the census count. Had they gotten their way, it would have adjusted the numbers.".

Blackwell goes on to say "Some say that statistical sampling cannot be used in congressional districting. That is only half-true. First, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that sampling cannot be used to reapportion seats from one state to another. However, the Court did not address whether sampling could be used to redraw district lines within each state."

This is all, of course, to do with US electoral boundary distribution practice, with which I do not pretend to be in any way familiar. I am interested to know whether, and if so how, in detail, this potentially non-transparent oversight of the US Census Bureau is reflected in, or contrasts with, Australian census practice and oversight. I would be keen to know whether US congressional re-districting decisions based upon census counts arrived at with the aid of 'statistical sampling' would introduce carried-forward 'tolerances' into the (proprietary) electronic voting and counting technology used to conduct US elections, with which results might be 'adjusted'.

Any clear step-by-step explanatory links showing how these systems can be gamed?

The Australian Statistician is, effectively, an ex-officio member of the Australian Electoral Commission.

KMB,

You claim an Australian identity, if the only post, reproduced in its entirety below, that you have made since opening this topic over eight days ago, is anything to go by.

"Greg, where is your compassion for us nasty, vengeful, ugly, ignorant and racist Anglo-European Australians who are clearly less evolved than you?
We’re victims too.
Posted by KMB, Friday, 27 February 2009 9:36:09 PM" See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8605#136151

I'm not focussing upon the content of this quote. My questions in my earlier post to this thread are genuine, but perhaps my last one was a bit off-putting. I'm not really trying to find out from you how to rig elections in the US. I suspect others far brighter than me already know that and may have been actually doing it there for quite some time. What I am really trying to find out is whether you have any useful information with respect as to how such rigging may be facilitated by this change in oversight of the US Bureau of Census.

Most particularly, I am interested in the similarities and/or contrasts you see in this with respect to the interrelation of the conduct of the Australian census with electoral administration here.

I assume this is not just a headline grabbing exercise relying for impact upon the well-understood method of adjusting electoral boundaries such that an opponents districts are 'blue ribbanded', whilst those of the perpetrators are 'marginalised', historically known as a gerrymander.

I am aware that articulate discussion of the technical aspects of electoral practice is both difficult and rare, but it is in this arena where provision for the skewing of electoral outcomes can be most covertly emplaced. Do you have anything to share with OLO viewers in relation to this topic beyond the posting of a few links to news items?

My view is that any nation that places any trust whatsoever in either centralised 'roll management' or electronic vote counting has lost the plot with respect to democracy.