Grading goes online - but is it more objective?

The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article today called A New Way to Grade that deals with the computerized grading system devised by a Texas Tech professor. As someone who is fairly good at writing and who also likes to play with mechanics of style and grammar in papers, in order to work through possibilities or provide jarring emphasis on certain points, I'm not sure what I think about this type of system.

I'm thinking of a recent paper I wrote for an urban sociology course. In it, in order to answer the question about modern urban culture using Georg Simmel and Sharon Zukin, I deliberately aped their style when dealing with the issues close to their writing. Only at the end of the paper did I "speak" in my own voice, when talking about comparisons and contradictions and my own ideas. In my actual course here, the professor knows me, has graded me before and respects me, so he liked my experimentation with style/voice and gave me an A. Though I noted, somewhat subtly, at the outset of the paper that I would do this, something he caught on to as he knows my style now, it is a line that may have been missed in a system such as this Texas Tech one and I might not have done nearly as well.

I'm also curious about whether this application will catch on, which would mean that at some point in the next few years, as a grad student, I'll be required to use it to do my own grading.

This system may seem more objective, but the postmodernist in me wonders if the state of being objective should always be the goal?