The word that sums up the presidential campaign this year is "change." Voters have expressed this sentiment by not only choosing candidates who promise change, but also by changing which candidate they choose in each successive state. You might call it "the audacity of votes."

Americans want change. That much is clear. Fortunately for them and for democracy, none of the announced candidates for president is George W. Bush. How's that for change? A large segment of the population should be satisfied just with that. Which brings up an important life lesson: The key to contentment? Low expectations.

But more than that, Americans seek a candidate who is "presidential." Again, fortunately for them, George W. Bush has made great strides in broadening the range of acceptable presidential behavior. After all, he's still in office and if he had done anything illegal, he would have been impeached, right? So voters, don't sweat it. By those standards, everyone in the running has cleared the hurdle of competence and respectability.

Above all, Americans want a candidate who is "electable." This quality is roughly equivalent to "popular" in a high-school social scene sense, and is highly correlated with positive responses to "seems like a guy I could hang out and have a beer with." This was seen as one of George W. Bush's greatest assets. Refer to the second or third paragraph for a refresher on how well that criterion worked out.

Still, when you boil it down, electability means that more people will vote for your guy than the other guy. When we consider the number of votes being cast on paperless voting machines made by companies like Diebold, however, we start to think the "electability" may be in the eye of the stockholder.