<div> > Howard <span id="">Swerdfeger</span> electorama.com wrote<br>
> This is an interesting idea, one I never thought of before. >
but there are many many issues you need to address before you could even<br>
> think of implementing something like this<br>
><br>
> The obvious problem is how you define the groups<br>
> Some of these groups may be obvious<br>
><br>
> Age, sex, race, income, current net worth, marital status, education<br>
> level, Many sub groups for each common disability<br>
<br>
Right, they would have to be well defined. I think age would be the<br>
best one to start with. Gender is another (though in some cases not<br>
quite so well defined).<br>
<br>
Race is even less well defined. There could be a rule that a person<br>
cannot change their selection once they have made it. However, there<br>
is still the problem of having clear definitions in the first place. In<br>
fact, I am not sure if race should be used for equality reasons. (though<br>
the same applies to gender). If the rule is age based, then everyone goes<br>
through each stage.<br>
<br>
An issue with age is managing people being transferred from one group to<br>
another. I think a better solution would be to break the population up<br>
based on year they were born. The groups might be x-1950, 1951-1975,<br>
1976-2000 and 2001-x (though that group would be unrepresented at the <br>
moment as it has no 18+ members).<br>
<br>
This would mean that each person would remain in the same group for their<br>
entire life. Also, the census could be used to work out the proportions as<br>
the question could ask year of birth and it wouldn't need to be computed on<br>
a year by year basis. Also, I wouldn't give credit to the lowest aged group<br>
on the basis of non adults in their group.<br>
<br>
><br>
> But some groups that I would think would be important to have would be<br>
> hard to prove that you are a member of that demographic. Two that spring<br>
> to mind are religion and sexual orientation.<br>
> Both of these demographics are self identified (<span id="">ie</span>. can be faked), but<br>
> both could affect voting patterns.<br>
<br>
One option there would be to allow the group itself control membership.<br>
You can join a group if the majority agree and can leave at will. I am<br>
not sure exactly if it would be effective. Group members would want new<br>
members to be non-voters. Hmm, as <span id="">Abd</span> said, it would start to approach<br>
<span id="">delagable</span> proxy.<br>
<br>
I guess I was thinking of some small corrections where there are differential<br>
turnout.<br>
<br>
> Worse some demographic category that you missed may effect voter turn out.<br>
> Example :<br>
> Bed ridden 80+ year olds with dementia, are much less likely to vote<br>
> then an 80 year old in good health. and it is likely that there voting<br>
> patters would be different.<br>
> as the bed ridden one might <span id="">favour</span> more money to permanent long term<br>
> care, and the other more money to medicare, and <span id="">homecare</span>.<br>
<br>
Allowing people form there own group would help here. Also, this seems<br>
to be a well defined situation, so could be used by the group allocation<br>
system.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
www.wikocracy.com</div>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>