In answer to your question about Mosaic and swing constituencies, I think it’s used more to target voters within constituencies who you don’t have good data on where it might be worth knocking on their door.

xD.

Can I borrow it after you?

Heh of course!

I agree, its always tricky. But in any society in a democracy you annoy certain constituents.

Using your earlier example though, what if evangelicals had a concern that if you addressed would guarantee you their vote even if you didn’t necessarily agree with it.

You also know that even though pandering to them might tick other people off (e.g atheists), its unlikely to be enough for them to change their vote.

Under that hypothetical you begin to approach the territory which justforfun outlined.

Sunny, do you think you should ‘pander’ to groups you identify having a need, or only go ahead with it if you agree with the aims of the policy or legislation?

If we want to allow our democracy to be run along ‘mathematical’ modelling lines

It already is and has been for quite some time.

Oh yeah I’ve ordered the book, should be interesting reading…

As each group is defined and shown to be influential – or at leasest be heard, other groups will form to demand their slice of limelight. 75 groups eh? what about the 76th group that can be found within the population? Not yet important enough to be their own subgroup I suppose, but give it time they will be ‘found’ ,then ‘defined’and then ‘cultivated’ by a politian who wants thier vote the birth of a new ‘community’ I suppose.

But there is the added problem – what happens when we as individuals have different ‘communities’ to which we ascibe ourselves in varing degrees – which conflict in their requirements? I can see the winners will be those that have the best models and can then influence the boundary commission to maximize the vote in their favour and then influence them again and again. I think we will see in 30 years the fragmentation of constituencies with enclaves within other constituancies, and even enclaves within enclaves.

Penn may have found his strategy works because he has found a tool that gives better results for politians – where their aim is to gain and hold office. However it is implied that this is good democracy. Is this the actually true though? If a politian retains his seat, I suppose it could be argued he has hit apon the correct balance in all the conflicting arguements and that this is ‘democracy’ in action. However is it good democracy? Its a genuine question. Any comments?

If we want to allow our democracy to be run along ‘mathematical’ modelling lines, then surely the alternative is another mathematical model – chance and the lottery. That truelly would be representative and perhaps easier to safe guard its equality. All National Lottery winners have to serve a term as an MP.

Sunny – what is a ‘progressive’ war? – just so I know when to vote for one the next time around?

I think I’m getting more reactionary as I age

justforfun

I don’t think it is in the interests of progressives to tailor their policies in order to meet perceived voter demands.

See, I’m not sure about this. I think you’re right in that it can backfire, as Gordon Brown backfired… but I think there are certain instances where it can work.

I think big decisions, like taxes and war, should be straightforward and progressive.

But you can also address parts of your electorate with specific laws. For example, addressing the concerns of lesbian and gay groups… or addressing christian evangelicals. If addressing them violates general progressive principles (like restricting free speech generally that is).

Otherwise, I like Micro managing generally. Makes the public like you. I might get Mark Penn’s book…

It’s a question of judgment and balance from what I can see. You don’t want to appear to focused on the numbers breakdown of potential voters but you can’t win without a proper analysis of them.