Want to know who is going to win the presidential election?

Look at the party platforms.

True, few voters actually read party platforms, which are intended to be statements of the party's positions and proposals. And who can blame them? The documents -- often leaden, homogenized and full of generic campaign-speak -- can send even the most ardent political observer into the deepest of slumbers.

But an analysis of both parties' platforms since 1960 suggests that their length and content can be remarkably helpful in gauging a party's health and, in the end, its chances of electoral success.

For example, a simple factor like the platform's page count correlates strongly to the party's success in winning the White House -- in inverse proportion. Since 1960, the average page count of the Democrats' platforms in losing years was 82, nearly double the average from winning years, which was 46. The longest platforms, at 128 and 124 pages, came during the disastrous elections of 1980 and 1984, respectively. (The only exception to this rule has been the shortest modern platform: the 16-page document that kicked off Michael Dukakis's woeful 1988 campaign.)

Another platform indicator is the candidate-to-opponent ratio. In 1984, the Democrats, in their hulking platform, found it almost impossible to spell out their policies without reference to the Republicans. Ronald Reagan, for example, was mentioned 213 times, while Walter Mondale, the nominee, didn't come up once -- and he lost in a rout. Republicans tried the same tactic in 1996, singling out Bill Clinton 153 times -- and giving Bob Dole a paltry 45 mentions. If the strategy was to rally the base, it fell flat with the voters -- an important lesson for members of the ''anybody but Bush'' crowd, who trust hatred of the president, and not support for John Kerry, to ensure a Democratic victory this year.