Two tangentially-related* articles from today's New York Times:

• The first, an op-ed by the chairman of NYU's sociology department, proposes a mandatory runoff for any election in which the result cannot be determined with at least 99% statistical certainty (in other words, if one million people vote, the winning candidate's margin of victory would have to exceed 1,300 votes in order to avoid a runoff; if five million voted, the margin of victory would have to exceed 3,000). It's an interesting idea, and he explains it well. And, Christ: anything's better than leaving it up to Scalia.
• The second, an editorial, notes that this year, for the first time in recent memory, the New York Times will endorse not a single Republican. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

* - Which is to say, "Two articles that were close to each other in the newspaper."