Census ignored Native American village

The 2000 census - the one we're stuck with until 2010 - was known to have deliberately skipped several small towns and undercounted probably every urban area in the country. Conveniently, these were in Democratic areas that had only minimal Republican support. (The census dictates funding for cities and communities, and determines apportionment for Congress, the state legislatures, and the all-important Electoral College.) As an example, I live in a very heavily Democratic precinct but was never sent a census form. If you did not receive a form, you were supposed to call a hotline to have one sent to you. I did this, but I still did not receive a form.

At minimum, the census also skipped a town in Missouri, one in Pennsylvania, and other places.

The political bias is borne out by the fact that the 2000 census reported that Republican states and counties gained population much faster than Democratic areas - repeating a trend seen in the 1990 census (which itself was deemed the most inaccurate ever and was marred by Mad Dog Bush vetoing a bill that would have made it more accurate). In fact, if the Electoral College in 2000 was based on the 1980 census instead of the 1990 count, it would not have mattered who won Florida, because Al Gore would have been sufficiently ahead. If it had been based on the 2000 census, it also would not have mattered, because Bush would have been so far ahead.

Now I've discovered another placed skipped by the census - a miscount that's mostly been covered up. This time it was the village of Supai, Arizona, which is the capital of the Havasupai Indian Reservation. The 1990 census showed it had 423 people; the 2000 census said it had zero, despite the fact that it clearly still had hundreds of inhabitants. Wikipedia mentions the discrepancy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supai,_Arizona

Supai is a remote town that gets its mail delivered by mule and has several beautiful waterfalls. Its economy is based on tourism. As proof the village is inhabited, it has a lodge, a store, a cafe, and at least one house of worship - even though there's no roads leading out of the area. If nobody lives there, why would the Postal Service still keep having a mail carrier ride a mule down there?

For the record (because I know you're gonna ask), Supai is in a heavily Democratic county - like the other places the census ignored.

I have yet to find any workaround for the 2000 census's mind-numbing inaccuracy, other than to keep using the 1990 numbers. Some have said that the census stupidly supplied only one form per building - causing urban areas with a lot of apartments to be undercounted - and that the proper workaround should just be to multiply each city's "official" population by the number of households per building. But Supai isn't a large city, and this doesn't explain why the census would give it a population of zero.

The 2000 census should have been declared null and void as soon as all these errors came to light, but now it's almost time for the next count. A couple years from now, we'll know whether the trend of censuses becoming progressively less accurate continues.