Census Sampling

Re “For Democrats, ‘Sampling’ Is Good as Votes,” Column Right, Aug. 27: As they say, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” James Pinkerton quotes one of the few qualified statisticians who is against the statistical sampling method, makes a subtle, roundabout inference that it is probably “deadbeat dads and criminals” who are a large part of the uncounted, then goes on to bash the “Clintonians” for pushing what he perceives is only a political issue.

We “counted” persons favor any process that improves census accuracy at reduced cost (maybe a billion dollars less?), no matter what the outcome.

DON BRUNDIGE

SHARRON BRUNDIGE

San Pedro

* Re your Aug. 26 editorial, “Make the Census Count”: Since the government can find just about everyone to collect taxes or distribute aid, why can’t it do the same when compiling the census, without having to resort to (as I understand it) bureaucratic, social activist guessing? I have in mind that little error on reporting the surplus. First it was $600 million, then (whoops) it was corrected to $1.6 billion. Why would anyone lose confidence in government bean-counters?

FRANK G. RIVERA

Los Angeles