> >Are you saying that if you're not counted by the census, you can't be counted any other way? Just because you're not counted by the census doesn't mean we can't be sure you exist

> The Constitution calls for a count, not an estimate.

No. It calls for an "enumeration". Who's to say that a head-count is a better "enumeration" than a statistically derived quantification? Both are just particular methods aimed at arriving with what is hopefully an accurate count of the _actual_ number (ya know, the root word of "enumeration"?) of people. It may well be that the statistical methods are in fact more accurate in doing the _desired_ job (and there is good evidence to show that this is in fact true). If you insist on a formal but inaccurate "count" which is known to miss people, and to be farther from the actual value, you are exalting form over substance.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo