Michigander in Mass

Are the near 50/50 splits (okay, more like 40/40, but still) in recent presidential elections indicative of an increasingly centrist political outlook among the general population, or are politicians, in their attempts to garner the most votes, increasingly forced to hedge their bets and try to please as many people as possible?

As I perouse johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com, I am reminded of a book I read recently, The Universe and the Teacup by K.C. Cole. Cole, a science writer, goes into great detail in one chapter on the mathematics of voting. She goes into great detail about the relative "fairness" of various voting schemes, reminding us how the nomination of Lani Guinier was derailed because--among other causes--of her view on the need to change our voting system. Guinier challenged the appropriateness of our "winner take all" system. Her book, Tyranny of the Majority, builds on many of the concerns that Founding Father James Madison had voiced more than 200 years ago.

In the words of Cole, Madison argued that "the tyranny imposed by 51 percent of the people was every bit as threatening to democracy as the royal tyranny the colonists had fought to leave behind." Cole describes several alternatives, including an innovative and mathematically sound system devised by Steven Brams and Alan Taylor.

Few would argue that our current system is tyrannical. But presidential elections certainly seem to be getting closer and closer. And when a vote for Kerry really means a vote against Bush--whereas a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush (are you following me?)--well, there's no wonder voters are reaching all-time lows in this country.

So, is it time to rethink our electoral process? Actually no. Let's figure out how to handle "one person, one vote" first, before we start looking at "one candidate, one vote" or "one person, 100 votes," as some alternatives suggest. Meanwhile, the "anybody but..." candidate selection process will continue for the forseeable future as Americans continue to be forced into the lesser of two evils and candidates are forced to continually compromise their positions to pander to the widest possible voting populations in order to secure their majority.