Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

"Worthless trash. Stop Wasting our time."

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:25pm - 0 Comments

Stephen Gordon, a Quebec university professor (“What a surprise. End of comment,” writes one commenter), tries to demonstrate how the mandatory long-form census has often been a tool for demonstrating the futility of large interventionist government schemes. His commentary appears on the National Post website, where it is read by National Post readers, and hijinx ensue in the comment boards.

Tags: census, National Post, Stephen Gordon

More by Paul Wells

Anon 001

Stephen Gordon. That elitist, latte drinking, troop hating, Volvo driving, pointy headed, educated leftist.

Who cares what he has to say! He's probably into facts and science.

Harper would much rather listen to Dean del Mastro, who has taken at least two statistics courses … or maybe it's one course twice.

NiceGuy

Educated leftists don't believe in 'facts and science'…they believe in FEELINGS…

With the census, they FEEL that the government is making the wrong decision. To this end they're gonna cry if not made to fill out the long form census by that bastard Harper.

Dennis

I love this reasoning. Scientists and statisticians point out the problems this is causing, and Harper apologists just ignore them. 'No way', you argue. 'If Mr. Harper says it's okay, then it's okay. These "statisticians" are clearly not basing their arguments on "statistics", nor are "scientists" arguing "science". They Just FEEL it's wrong.'

I can't believe literate people (I mean, you were able to type it, after all) even think this way. Perhaps that's Canada's problem in a nutshell?

Anon 001

No, it isn't. It is just spin.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

Hey, I'm just a guy from Orillia.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

So how long did you bang your head on your keyboard after reading those comments?
Mike T.

commie!
OntarioTown

That's an excuse?
Jenn_

Careful, Stephen. I'm just a girl from Orillia, and some of this stuff (at the National Post comments, anyway) is going straight over my head. Of course, I went to Twin Lakes. You?

Jenn_

Oh, wait a minute. I was reading the wrong comments (how stupid am I that I can't even get on the right comments page?) These comments I, sadly, understand all too well!
http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

ODCVI, class of 1980!

Jenn_

Ah well, I was a couple of years ahead of you. As were the ODers I knew.
wsam

I think you sold me hash.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

Hah!. If you *really* knew me then, you'd know just how funny that was.

Mike T.

What Mr. Gordon's article doesn't take into account is…..

:)
LaxAtlDfwYow

Visceral reaction to the NP comments: has this country always been so galactically stupid or I am just late to notice?

http://onelinecritic.wordpress.com/ DirtyOldTown

Stupidity is a difficult thing to quantify. But it certainly has been getting harder and harder to ignore it since the National Post began collecting it all in one place, and then rubbing everyone's face in it.
Phil_King

Well as my grandfather used to say, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, but to be fair, most people don't act stupid… it's the real thing. Ultimately then, there is no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people who ask questions.

And we should pity them. LOL

Inkless

In addition to snarking at the Post comment board (and to be fair, I started it), readers are also invited to comment on the substance of Gordon's argument. Or whatever. Open comment thread, basically. Do try to be nice to one another.

Cats

OH wow all 13 comments on the Post's board ?

Macleans slags Postmedia who slags SunMedia on a daily basis.

Is this a snake eating its tail ??

CATS!
LaxAtlDfwYow

Thanks Paul. I deserved that.

Phil_King

Yeah, give us hell Quimby! LOL

Alex B

Open comments? OK, here's the most depressing thing I've seen all year:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=RCMP%20Insite&a…

Since you and Geddes are about the only people in the country that care, I was half hoping that Ken Whyte would give a little speech outside a Macleans elevator.

You know the results of the latest Ipsos Reid Poll? Half the country never even heard of the word "Insite". Nobody gives a s**t. You guys are probably pretty tired, right? Well, you should be. Go on home, get a nice hot bath. Rest up… 15 minutes. Then get your asses back in gear. We're under a lot of pressure, you know, and you put us there. Nothings riding on this except the, uh, nation's police force, the ability of our leaders to lie about evidence to fit any policy narrative they want, and maybe the future of the country.

s_c_f

You know, there's an old saying – "don't blame the voters".

If there are exactly three journalists in the country that care, then don't blame the other journalists. If most people don't care about Insite, don't blame most people.

I've been making the argument that most people don't care much about the census decision. Sure, if you poll them, 80% will express an opinion one way or the other. But most don't consider it something that would influence their vote. But you wouldn't get that from all the hysteria around here. One of the many reasons people don't care about the census is that when push comes to shove, government is not there to help. When it comes to peoples' own lives, they know the census has no real impact on their own well-being, it's just another tool the government uses to control. It doesn't make the trains run on time and it doesn't put bread on the table, and it never will.

s_c_f

In case you haven't noticed, comments from readers on your own blog these days look just like the ones on the Post. If you take a look around, you'll see plenty of comments similar to "Worthless trash. Stop Wasting our time." Most of them are commenters talking about perfectly reasonable points of view from other commenters.

tedbetts

"Before 1971, governments had access to only fragmentary data sets, and the available resources for analyzing them were, by modern standards, rudimentary. But this lack of information was not an obstacle in constructing the basic infrastructure of the Canadian welfare state: its major features – publicly-funded health care, pensions and unemployment insurance – were all established before the modern census. It’s not clear why anyone would believe that depriving the government of data would prevent it from introducing new programs.

Of course, the lack of data did have important implications for the development of the welfare state: it was clumsily-designed and wasteful. As a result, much of the evidence-based policy analysis that has taken place over the past 40 years consists of documenting cases where existing policies were inefficient, ineffective, or even counter-productive."

For me, that right says it all and that has been my main point whenever I've discussed the census and Harper's dumb decision.

Good census data results in better governance and better government, not necessarily more governance and government. It is critical to the citizen's ability to keep the government accountable.

MarionKl

That is what I was thinking too, when I read Stephen Taylor's comment about "divorced Punjabi bus riders" or something like that. He claimed that not being able to quantify an "interest group" would mean that this group would lose influence.

I think the contrary is true. I can come to you and say that divorced Punjabi bus riders need special treatment because of A, B and C, and you won't have the data to tell me I'm wrong.
Phil_King

Totally on point.

More or less government is strictly a function of who we elect.

A strong fact base does however give one's enemies ammunition to criticize, regardless of stripe, so maybe that's the point?

After all, this census runs from 2006-2011, which is exactly the time period the CPC has governed over, and if they don't change the census their performance can be directly compared to the past LPC governments, which governed in boom times.

Think about it.

Olaf

Well I'll start it off, although no promises about my comment adding substance. I consider facts to be neutral (oh please, some comedic genius quote Stephen Colbert here, I'd laugh SO HARD!). I don't think that census data is more useful to either side of the spectrum. We on the right will keep bellyaching about smaller government, and those on the left will remind us that there's not a problem the government can't fix. To the extent that the data supports us, we'll use it, to the extent it doesn't we'll use other arguments, information, etc.

Although I understand (and appreciate) Stephen's motivation in publishing such a peice in the Post ("If I can't talk sense into them, maybe I can fool them into thinking its in their ideological best interests…")

NorthernPoV

"maybe I can fool them"

just cause the right-wing works this way, don't cast aspersions about those whom you know not!

Olaf

Well, I'll admit I don't know Stephen Gordon personally (although he's scolded me a few times on here, I assume for good reason). However, I can't imagine he actually thinks that census data (which is essentially a collection of demographic facts), is inherently supportive of conservative viewpoints, although I stand to be corrected. To so think, he'd have to think that census data, properly analysed and considered along with all other data sources, support conservative positions, which would force him to think that, on balance at least, those conservative positions were more persuasive than progressive positions; furthermore, he'd have to think that if this all important census data supported conservatism, that he himself should identify as such (if only privately); which would make him perhaps one of the few social scientists outside of the U of C in this country who would so identify.

In short, I remain committed to the impression (until corrected) that he wasn't saying "census data most often supports conservative positions", so much as "these people are (often) ideological nitwits (which would seem to be borne out by the commentary) who won't listen to reason, so maybe if I give them a few examples of discrete policy debates where they're actually correct according to census data, they'll at least open their minds a little".

Olaf

Please note Gordon's correction below (which I wish I read before I went off on one of my mind reading tangents again… stupid… you're stupid Olaf!)

That's it, I'm gonna quit trying to be thoughtful. This is a trainwreck. I'm just going to go back to being… er… pretending to be stupid.

tedbetts

" To the extent that the data supports us, we'll use it, to the extent it doesn't we'll use other arguments, information, etc."

To the extent you actually have the data to begin, of course.

Olaf

To the extent you actually have the data to begin, of course.

This assumes that a) no body of data exists without the census, which is absurd; and b) that if data is less accurate, individuals with agendas (see: most of us) won't just use other data sources, or use the less accurate census data when it supports our position (which is how we operate with the most accurate census data), or resort to evidence that is not statistical in nature, all of which I dispute.

I think you overestimate both the degree to which census data constitutes the factual foundation by which political arguments are made, and the extent to which political actors (parties, the media, academics, think tanks, etc.) use census data in good faith prior (and that word is key) to forming the specific positions that they'd like to support, as opposed to "we want to be tough on crime, find us some evidence" or "we think child poverty is a problem, find us some evidence".

NorthernPoV

substance?
- oh, like the idea that empirical-evidence-based decision making works just as well for "right wing" gov'ts as it does for those of the more leftward persuasion -

we don't need no stinkin ' substance
http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

I should remind people to click through on the 'read the rest here' link. By mutual agreement, the Post doesn't reproduce entire articles from WCI.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

Oh, and nothing I write is 'for the Post'. Sometimes the Post decides to runs things from WCI, most of the time it doesn't.

Cats

I think most of us understand the process of one news organization linking to another.

Link + Commentary is the order of the day around here.

Your explanations seem as out of place as taking court action against a women who refused to fill out the 2006 census (will she get jail time this fall ?)

Best fishes.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

Could you explain it to Olaf? He seemed to not have receive the memo. Hence the explanation.

Holly Stick

Olaf is not always as stupid as he seems: Cats is.
Cats

Heh! Should have gotten your toes wet then.

Since Olaf is the only person here who doesn't understand how the internet works Instead of beating around the bush with "I should remind people" you should have clicked the REPLY function and said

YO OLAF, this is how it is!

And then explained the situation.

Mice day.
http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

You know, for a lover of freedom, you seem awfully keen on enforcing petty, pointless rules.
Cats

Nah just getting upset about the high opportunity costs of you writing 3 DUH posts to all readers.

I mean, I have nothing better to do but you have a census to save !

(Since it seems like nothing will change the fact that the census is dead are you just doing this to inflict maximum political damage on the Tories now ??)

Cats?

Olaf

My bad, I assumed it was a special for the Post, because it seemed to be the only thing that would tend to get through to their more ideological readership.

Don't mind Cats. I like having rather obvious things explained to me, as embarrassing as it may be, so thanks. Cuts down on the ol' thinkin' time. :)

http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

Or even just go straight to the original post here: http://bit.ly/cZATA3

tedbetts

[cont]

"Employment Insurance. A poorly-designed employment insurance program can be abused, and as I noted in this post, that’s exactly what happened before the reforms of the 1990s. To those studies, we can add this one by my former grad school office-mate Jane Friesen, which documents how those reforms produced the predicted behavioural responses.

Social assistance. Economic theory predicts that benefits that are too generous provide a disincentive to find employment, and available data are consistent with the theory."

Mr. Harper, ignorance is not strength.

Olaf

And how many on the left think that Canada should become more liberalized economically? How many on the left think that we should do away with pay equity legislation? How many on the left weren't clamouring for higher employment insurance payments very recently? How many think that Canada should have less social insurance?

QED.

TJCook

You know, in order to make sense with "QED" even on the surface, you would have to make some sort of assertion. Really, anything at all.

Most unironic applications of "QED" are completely worthless, but to not even make a point and then to claim "QED" is just beyond silly.

QED. (See what I did there?)

Olaf

I made the assertion in the comment directly above Ted's, and I thought it imprudent and unnecessary to copy and paste the entire comment over again, assuming people read them from top to bottom. But thanks for the lesson, professor. Look how smart you seem compared to me! You'll get all the undergrad ladies tonight!

TJCook

Directly above Ted's comment? You mean in a whole other comment thread?

Forgive me, I didn't realize I was required to study your entire oeuvre in order to suss out the humour which (I'll take your word for it) apparently makes sense in that grand context.

Look how smart you are. Your humour transcends mere comment threads. There will be no busty undergrad ladies available for me tonight, they'll all be at home trying to understand your randomly-placed attempts at humour.

Personally, I don't think it's worth the effort. QED.
Olaf

Forgive me, I didn't realize I was required to study your entire oeuvre in order to suss out the humour which (I'll take your word for it) apparently makes sense in that grand context.

I don't recall being intentionally humourous, but I'll take any random giggles I can get (beggars can't be choosers, after all). And yes, please examine my entire oeuvre, at the very least. I expected you to dig up my 11th grade social studies paper, in which I made the statement to be proven. For convenience, however, I also posted it in the comment directly above Teds. But your comprehension of Latin acronyms is admittedly exemplary.

Personally, I don't think it's worth the effort.

Sadly, if you were to talk a mandatory census of my past romantic interests on the matter, your sentiment would surely be unanimous. I'm banking that the voluntary survey I've sent out will produce more favourable results.

LaxAtlDfwYow

Here is where I go looking for a beating….

Can we consider for a moment that Harper and (at least a couple of) his minions are really not as ignorant as the arguments they make over this (the LFC) and other similar issues? In place of ignorance, I'd propose the operative characteristic is repugnance. No, perhaps loathing. Maybe revulsion. Yeah, let's go with repugnance, loathing and revulsion for the society that Canada – right or wrong (and there's plenty wrong) has become and those that they blame for it..

Mix those with a healthy dose of "elite" politicians' hunger for power and a ample portion of intelligence and we have the current government. For Harper and the most senior cabmins, it isn't ignornace at all. It's their chosen way to get and retain power.

And – news flash – it's working.

TJCook

Yup, it's the Stupid vs Evil debate, as played out on The Daily Show last night.

zing27294

I should probably link this to Olaf's comment above, but I won't to buy me some time to hide from his lightning wit & temper. Moving towards an evidence-based policy system would be an enormous benefit towards society as a whole. I can agree that it doesn't necessarily favour the idiotologies of the left or right but that hardly makes it neutral. That is like saying evidence based medicine doesn't favour cardiologists or nephrologists so lets call it a wash. Who cares which doctor wins if fewer patients die?

To me the effectiveness of an evidence-based approach is determined by how much of government decision making is de-politicized. To the extent this happens, it marginalizes the extremes on both the sides of the spectrum. It may also make politics less interesting but hell we will always have biker babes, busty hookers and the occasional stuffed envelope to keep things fun.

Olaf

The difference is, I guess, that cardiologists and nephrologists aren't looking at the same issues and coming to diametrically different conclusions. It would be like cardiologists going up against, I don't know, holistic healers who think they can cure your heart more effectively than well trained cardiologists with the aid of beetroot and copper chest plates. The other obvious problem is simply that medicine is a hard science – politics, a soft one (at best). Which is why you can prove the holistic healers demonstrably wrong, and why every time a social scientist comes out with a theory, there will always be another of equal prestige who thinks the opposite.

Evidence-based decision making is fantastic, in my opinion. I love the idea. But until I see it actually happening on our political spectrum, until evidence plays a role prior to decisions being made in the political realm, I will be skeptical of its salience. I think that's why I've been skeptical of claims that the long form census will be the end of the world (while all along accepting that the data will be less accurate). I think that the same people will make the same arguments, continue to ignore the evidence that doesn't support them, so if those numbers are off by a few percentage points, it won't make much of a difference one way or another.

Political decision making combines actual facts with ideology, philosophy, and emotions. I fear the former more often than not bends to the latter three, and not the other way around. But perhaps I'm just a cynic.

TJCook

"I think that's why I've been skeptical of claims that the long form census will be the end of the world…"

I haven't seem those claims – could you provide some links?

The point, as I see it, is that regardless of how often human failings interfere with pure, lily-white, evidence-based policy decisions, if you trash the best data we have, those evidence-based policy decisions become next to impossible.

There are two issues here: the decision-making process (which we all agree is flawed) and the evidence-gathering (which is generally accepted to be among the best in the world). We can't let our cynicism about the decision-making process allow us to trash the evidence that makes good process possible.

Olaf

We can't let our cynicism about the decision-making process allow us to trash the evidence that makes good process possible.

I can. I'm very cynical. As I see it, the more decision making is mechanical and equation-based, and the less politics, interepretation, bias and discretion is involved, the more crucial it is to have extremely precise information. For example, in the hard sciences, even slightly inaccurate data can lead to demonstrably 'wrong' answers. However, to the degree that political decision making is inherently political, interpretive, biased and discretionary, the less important becomes extreme statistical precision.

I'm not disputing that the statistics will be less reliable if the census becomes a survey. I think, with respect, that the Census Chicken Littles are wildly overplaying the relative importance of statistical precision compared to ideology, personality, politics, discretion, cronyism, or what have you, in public policy making.

TJCook

"I'm not disputing that the statistics will be less reliable if the census becomes a survey."

No, I understand. You're saying that the decision-making process doesn't rely on data. Fair enough, maybe it doesn't. But changing from a high-quality census to a lower-quality survey means that the decision-making process can't rely on data because the data are unreliable.

This is essentially giving up on the notion of well-informed decision-making altogether. Cynical or not, you must see that as an undesirable outcome.

And beyond the initial decision-making, of course, this data supports accountability after the fact. Surely nobody is so cynical as to say that we shouldn't bother measuring the efficiency or effectiveness of public programs. And that kind of accountability really does happen – from Sheila Fraser to Kevin Page to thousands of faceless analysts, there is continual assessment of government spending that's relatively free of political interference.
Olaf

Again, I'm all for good statistics and I'm all for accountability. However, imagine the scenarios. Lets say crime. The Tories put forward a new justice policy. Harsher penalties, more penal capacity, etc. Lovely. Five years later, turns out crime has gone down. Conservative: Brilliant, see we told you it would work! Opposition: first of all, some crime has gone up, look at offences A, B and C. Secondly, some crime went down because of increased prosperity, more social cohesion, demographic shifts, anything but harsher penalties.

Conversely, say crime has gone up. Opposition: see, we told you that it wouldn't work, if anything it's made things worse! Crime has increased due to harsher penalties! Conservatives: first of all, not all crime has gone up, look at crimes A, B and C. Second of all, certain demographic shifts, GDP decline, etc. have led to more crime. And lastly, this just proves we should have gone further with our tough on crime policies. Elect a Conservative government if you don't want to get shot.
TJCook

I fail to see the relevance. Politicans will always spin, what's your point as it relates to the quality of data?

bergkamp

I think Gordon should call himself Don Quixote if he thinks that argument is going to convince many who don't like census because census refuseniks are more concerned about privacy or coercion than they are with government programs.

Good government is oxymoron so trying to claim that census helps government craft better programs is nonsense on stilts. You could also argue that short and long census give pols just a little knowledge, which is always dangerous, and makes them think they know more than they actually do.

If people are worried about good governance, get rid of census and other stats from StatsCan, polls, consultants and the like and make MPs listen to their constituents again. People's satisfaction with government would improve if they thought they were being listened to and not being totally ignored like we are now.

Oliver

You're such a tool it's frightening.

Stewart_Smith

Come on now… my best guess is bergy is ignored by her MP.

hardmouth

"good government is oxymoron"

How un-Canadian….

Also… what if an MP's constituents want different things?

MarionKl

I think MPs should just have a mini-referendum among their constituents on each issue. :-P Who cares about fact-based decision-making?

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think Gordon should call himself Don Quixote if he thinks that argument is going to convince many who don't like census…

It's true. Rational arguments are probably not the way to go when attacking irrational stances.
s_c_f

Good government is oxymoron so trying to claim that census helps government craft better programs is nonsense on stilts.

Exactly.

Looking at his examples, they are examples of how to reduce the negative effects of government programs. The most effective means is to trash the programs.

Apart from free trade, which in reality is not a government program, but a program to reduce government regulation, the examples from Gordon are: EI and pay equity (the social assistance section is just another section about EI). Most people on the right, those who know how to save and those who believe government doesn't need to insert itself into the salary decisions of employers, they want those programs trashed, not altered. They know that there is really no way to eliminate the abuse of illogical government programs except to eliminate the abusive illogical programs.

When it comes to health and crime, liberals love to talk about prevention. But when it comes to abuse from the government, prevention goes out the window. And then they think conservatives should be happy with little tweaks that reduce the abuse, rather then prevent it from happening at all.

It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

Oliver

I read the original post (thanks for the link Mr Gordon) but I simply can't stand the left vs right optic.
I guess Olaf said it above better than I can, this whole census issue is about data. People claiming to support or refuse the government in the name of the right or left are missing the point and shouldn't be taken seriously.

s_c_f

It's more than just 'data'. It's also: what is the 'data' for? Why do they need it? Is it 'private' or not?

TJCook

Wow. Whackjob central.

"Bring back Mark Steyn while you're at it, and ask Conrad Black for some pointers, this has to stop you guys!"

Well, that explains Mark Steyn's continued existence as a "writer". You guys.

Also: "Give it a rest Gordon. Many of us don't care about your pointy headed bean counting approach to coercing us out of our personal information."

Yeah, 'Gordon'. You and your sick love for our personal data. My cynical side wants to buy Sun Media stock, they're probably going to do very well here.
Brammer

Wait, the NP has a website…?

Anon 001

Yup. It may not have a printer, though.

Wascally Wabbit

As I recall – Harper made this an issue because of the criminalization of not participating in a mandatory exercise.
When his “solution” didn’t stand up to the “sniff” test – it became – the means of obtaning information is irrelevant.
When the experts – like Mr. Gorodn – called him out – he reverted to – Gna Gna – We’re the government and you’re not!
See any pattern here folks?
chet

Leftist academics and media elites are swimming against an ever strengthening current running against them. The notion that government can solve any problem as long as they take enough of our money, our information, our responsibilities is fading quickly.

The dismantling of the welfare state is occurring in most countries, some more explicitly than others. In fact the modern welfare state was nothing but the simple act of spending what we don't have, pretending we can afford lavish pet progressive projects, pushing the problem of paying for it off into the future. Well the future is now and reality is hitting the utopic vision hard in the face.

In Canada, we're a few seats swing away from joining what the Americans are about to do in November, and what is happening all over Europe.

A tectonic correction is getting underway, and all the academic slight-of-hand in the world isn't going to change it.

NiceGuy

Wow, you stumbled into the wrong place dude. This is the all commies, all the time, Macleans now.

Get out while you still can.
Loraine Lamontagne

The utopic vision is that the creation of the National Household Survey and of a compulsory national registriy will dismantle the nanny state. I see no logic in this. This government is moving us toward bigger, more intrusive and more expensive ways of getting information from citizens.

If we are to dismantle the welfare state, let's get rid of social programs. The census is not a social program.

Are roads a social program?

Holly Stick

People use them, whether they paid into them or not.

LC Bennett

Stephen Gordon assumes that only the mandatory long form census can evaluate the success or failure of government programs. I am sure that facts about Free Trade, EI, Pay Equity and Social Assistance could have been attained as efficiently through other means. For instance business, government and tax records provides up-to-date records that could be used to derive this same information. Do only conservatives and libertarians have the ability and creativity to devise methods other than state coercion?

Jenn_

Well, Orwell gave you a pretty good blueprint, but I'm not sure whether he was a conservative or a libertarian.

Stewart_Smith

Well, I do believe that was a full fledged snark! The conversion is complete.

LC, In addition to the literary homework generously assigned by Jenn, you may want to look through http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-21/index.html

LC Bennett

Gordon's argument was an attempt to make the case that the mandatory long form census is needed to prove/disprove the success of government programs. Specifically, programs relating to *business* type data. First he assumes that this is the *only* way this information about business,wages and trade etc.can be assembled. That is not true. The government already has access to this business info, info that is far more up to date when compared to the census. Second, Gordon attempts to apply the business case to justify the LFC but ignores the question about the appropriateness of allowing the government to continue to ask inane and *personal* questions about bedrooms and unpaid housework. There is a world of difference between impersonal questions about business and personal questions about your home life. Diverting attention to Free Trade and EI is only marginally less condescending than an article in the G&M that insisted that God Ordered a Census.

The discussion about privacy and government power over an individual's personal information is an entirely different one. I would argue for much, much less government meddling. If that fails, then at least use the least intrusive methods of data collection available – a voluntary LFC.

I find it odd that two supporters of the LFC now want to frame this as a small, restricted government vs. Orwellian Big Brother government argument. Why now? An overnight conversion perhaps? Or an admission that ,yes, there might be other, better methods of data collection than using the LFC? BTW, how exactly is mining data that is already available in government databases (with the same privacy protection we are told the census provides) more Orwellian than forcing citizens to divulge much more personal info under harassment by government workers at your door and threats of fines/ jail time.
s_c_f

Good point. Any program should be able to measure itself. The measurement tools should be an integral part of the program. Relying on the census for such things, which occurs every 5 years and has a grab-bag of info from all Canadians regardless of their participation in government programs, that strikes me as absurd.

The example about EI, for instance, showed that when changing the eligibility period, then the number of work stints that reached that period spiked. Work stints need not be measured with a census. This information can be obtained from employers directly.

LC Bennett

Thanks scf. Most programs are able to measure themselves.

Supporters of the mandatory long form census avoid the question of government's right to force personal information from citizens vs. citizen's rights to choose the level of privacy they feel comfortable divulging behind arguments about infrastructure and "good government". Infrastructure info can and is already obtained through other means – school enrollment, traffic sensors, births, deaths, OAS enrollment, etc. Ditto for EI. The LFC's questions are more want to know rather than need to know. It is like a job interviewer asking "Are you single?" instead of focusing on credentials and work experience. Both are an inappropriate use of power.

s_c_f

Additionally, I find it perplexing that some of the same people people who are adamantly against allowing a job interviewer to ask "Are you single?" are the same people arguing for the mandatory long form. It makes no sense, unless they have made the decision that those in the government can be trusted with anything, and that there should be no privacy from the government. That also makes no sense, because many of the individuals in government move in and out of the private sector, and also because historically speaking it is evident that government cannot be trusted any more than any other entity, in fact less so.

Oliver

So you think the government is allowed to go ask businesses for personnal information on their customers to gather data?
I also like how you say "a program can measure itself": that's not saying much. The question here is what kind of measurement are you looking? Obviously a program can tell you how many people have signed up for it and such, but if you want to find out the effect it has at large, you need outside info.
s_c_f

if you want to find out the effect it has at large, you need outside info

That should be part of the program. If it needs outside info, it should be part. Every program should be able to measure itself. If it cannot, it should not exist.

MarionKl

One thing I have been trying to find out: What's the penalty for refusing Jury Duty? Because that's the other civic duty that Canadians have to fulfill.
John

I'm confused. Why is a mandatory census considered a precision instrument, and an opt-in census not so? They are both polls with very large sample volumes. The media routinely take much smaller samples for their polls. And when they do, Peter Mansbridge puts on his best Vice Principals' voice and says "this poll is considered accurate 19 times out of 20".

hosertohoosier

1. It does not have to do with sample size, it has to do with the composition of the sample. In a random sample everybody in the underlying population should have an equal chance to be selected. In an opt-in survey, obviously, that won't happen since different groups may be more or less likely to opt in.

2. Polls are subject to two kinds of errors. One is random error. There is some chance that by sheer luck they happened to phone a bunch of people that all held an opinion different from the underlying population. You can reduce the likelihood of random error by calling more people. This is where the 19 out of 20 comes from, as well as the margin of error.

3. However, there is a second kind of error – sampling error. The margin of error does not account for this possibility, by the way. Sampling error can occur if everybody in the underlying population does not have an equal chance of being selected to be in the sample. For instance, there is a bar in Ontario that does a beer poll during elections. They assign different beers a political party (Tory blue lager, NDP worker's brown ale, etc.), and count the results. They tend to get very large sample sizes (everybody loves beer), but they do not have a representative sample (among other obvious flaws with the poll). Men are more likely to drink beer, and of course, the people visiting the bar are only reflective of one small community in Southern Ontario.

4. A mandatory census is necessary because that is the only way to ensure that everybody has an equal chance of taking the census. If it was optional some groups would disproportionately opt out (eg. young people, immigrants and French people). Since the census feeds into the delivery of key services, this would have some real policy implications.

5. Polls can limit these problems by weighting their samples. So lets say 60% of your sample was male. Since you know that only 50% of the real population is male (or maybe 49), you could weight female responses more heavily to compensate. The problem is that some of the measures that people use for weighting are from the long form census. After all, this is the closest thing we have to an actual population estimate. If the long form was messed up by sampling error it would be far less useful.

I hope that was helpful.

John

Yes it was. Very civil and thoughtful as well. Thank you. I think a lot of us are prone to channeling our "inner smart-ass" on these pages. Your piece was a welcome change… I would however, question the value of parsing the data so fine. If you see the country as a collection of disparate groups, all of whom need legislation and programs targeted at them, then yes. Our business and industrial policy was run that way through the seventies and eighties. It did not serve us well. If on the other hand, you see the country as individuals, individuals of all types mind, then there is much less of a need for targeted programs. You target programs, as much as possible, to Canadians as a whole

PolJunkie

"Why is a mandatory census considered a precision instrument, and an opt-in census not so? They are both polls with very large sample volumes."

Oh. My .God.
wsam

I think your confusion says it all.

NiceGuy

So, let me get this straight…all the Canadian lefties have their panties in a knot because they are NOT being made to divulge personal information to a government they hate, led by a PM they despise?

Only in Canada…..

Andrew (not P or C)

Nope, not only in Canada. Censuses are conducted around the world with broad support from the people in each country. Those countries that do not conduct censuses tend to maintain government databases of all your private information that make the process of asking you for the information redundant.

People care that the government has the facts it needs to spend money efficiently and responsibly. Spending more to get worse data leads to wasteful spending, and makes it impossible for people to assess the effectiveness of government policies. Then we're left to an ideological war. And I think you'd rather dislike it if the Dipper got their hands on the tiller without any evidence-based policy analysis to put the brakes on their wackier ideas.
Halo_Override

I'm willing to let you
Get this straight
If you'll give me a guess
How long I'll need to wait
Lord Kitchener's Own

No, we're just RATIONAL. We don't replace rational decision making with irrational decision making just because a party we don't like is in power. I may not like the current government, but that doesn't mean I want to sabotage the information they get that can help them better govern the country.

Oliver

Why do you that troops so much though?!

Oliver

I mean hate the troops!

NB: is there a delete post button?

hosertohoosier

I think the Lake Wobegon effect can help explain some of the general stupidity one sees on comment boards everywhere.

Iccyh

Canadian audience, not easy to get that reference up here.

hosertohoosier

For those unfamiliar with Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegon is a town where everybody is above average. Of course Lake Wobegon could be almost any town, since people generally do overestimate their intelligence and ability – particularly less skilled/intelligent people (who often also have less ability for self-assessment).

For the visually minded: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6vydZpzxYgU/SgZ95oLm1EI…

For a possible culprit: http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2…

Phil

Referring to the Dunning – Kruger chart………who the heck put the labels on that thing – what's the purpose of labeling one axis in quartiles and the other in deciles?

I realize the graph is technically still correct as shown, but still……..

ex-canuck

My Gawd, the number crunchers have got a hold of this thread!
JamesHalifax

Hey…on another note: Look what those crazy duck hunters are worried about now.
http://nfa.ca/operation-zero-tolerance
http://www.robedger.blogspot.com/ Robin_E

I tend to think that Gordon's main point is right. However, I still think Wells' theory that the Cons are getting rid of the census because they believe the opposite to be the case is plausible; that line of thought seems to have takers in the party, and statistics haven't exactly been the Con's friends in more recent policy debates