Use of Sampling in 2000 Census Count

Re “If the Census Is Faulty, the Cities Will Pay Dearly,” editorial, Oct. 2: “Sampling” the census is a lax approach that undermines the language and intent of the Constitution. Most of the people avoiding participation in the census do it because they know they can get away with it. The laws say, “Whoever . . . refuses or willfully neglects . . . to answer . . . any of the questions . . . shall be fined not more than $100.” Not only is this penalty inadequate, it is seldom, if ever, enforced.

By another name, “sampling” could be called “guessing.” Rather than tackling this important problem with a half-baked, unproved scheme, the solution to rebuilding a true count of all the people is new legislation that has some teeth, a la the IRS laws, and enforcing it.

The year 2000 would be a perfect year to put our population books in order.

ALEX TROFFEY

Glendale

It is reported the last census had a 1.5% error. The proposed statistical method will count 90% of the population and estimate the other 10%. And you want me to believe this last 10% of the census count will have less than a 1.5% error and will not be biased by immense political pressure. I don’t think so.

ALLEN HAGELBERG

Upland

Re “House Balks on Census Count by ‘Sample’ Method,” Oct. 1:

From one who counted in the 1990 census, and hopes to count in the 2000 census, I have some thoughts. I was in at the start of the count and stayed until it was finished. Part of the blame, if there was an inaccurate count, can be laid at the feet of the politicians who wanted questions asked during the process that had nothing to do with the counting of the people. Example: How much spaghetti do you eat every week? Too many questions like this took away from valuable time and energy that could have been put to better use.

All of the census takers in our group were dedicated, hard-working people, and everyone that wanted to be counted was counted, and vice versa. If the activists feel that the immigrants, transients, single people and the poor were undercounted, all they would have had to do was to make sure that the people they represented were at the proper places at the right time, and they would have been counted.

Your editorial was faulty too. Counting is not an outdated method. It has been around forever. I think our forefathers meant that the population be counted, and not sampled or estimated. Let’s do the job as it was meant to be done.

HARRY HOWIE

Azusa