Listening to the opinion going round and around entrenched positions about whether Hillary Clinton would make a good VP, and whether she and Obama individually would come at a joint ticket, has made me wonder again about the role personality type plays in politics and the way people vote.

I’ve never been officially Myers-Brugged, but when I’ve done the tests online I consistently come out as INFJ, with the J being borderline; an Idealist/Councilor-borderline-Healer in the Keirsey descriptions. I notice and admire that INFP’s (I am close to a number of them, though they are rare!) step up more quickly to look for a negotiated way of getting to a desired bigger picture position. For instance, my instinct is that Clinton has done too much that is the antithesis of what Obama is driving at for it to be right for Obama to accept her as a running mate. But Amy is trying to get past the discomfort by framing the ticket as a coalition of separate minority parties, if it will get Obama into office. It’s a little like those woven tube finger traps: pull from opposite positions and you are stuck, give a little and you can get out.

There have been studies that suggest that personality type plays a part in political affiliation. Taking that idea further, if you can break a population down into personality types by percentage, and forecast what attitudes are likely to be taken by each type and how they might vote on different candidates and the range of issues on the table, perhaps it would be possible to model an election outcome? It would save a lot of money and shenanigans. Would you be able to build in nimble-enough responses to unexpected events and happenstances such as the perfect storm of 9/11 and Tampa that Howard finessed to give him the 2001 Australian election; or alternatively would it provide a protection against such occurrences? What about rigging? And is it likely we would be happy to accept the underlying idea of determinism, and the missing drama and excitement of the election trail?