Undoubtedly, a significant percentage of votes received by correspondence lengthens the process of counting votes and announcing the final result, so we can see how Americans and the world will hold their breath for a few days before it is announced who won - comments for Interia Dr. Hab.Paweł Laidler, professor of the university, dean of the Faculty of international and political studies of the university.
Recall that on November 3 in the United States held presidential elections, which will face the incumbent president, Republican Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden. To better understand what is happening overseas-we consulted an expert.
Interia: why are Americans so attached to a system in which the candidate with the most votes in the country does not necessarily have to win?
Prof. Paweł Laidler: - the System you mention, i.e. the election of the president indirectly, through the assembly of electors, is indeed heavily criticized today, especially since in the last elections the difference between the candidates in terms of the popular vote was huge (more than two million votes). Nevertheless, presidential elections are regulated by the constitution, to which many Americans have a particular weakness, even if the regulations it introduces are currently controversial.
- Historically, the regulation of the participation of electors, as an intermediate body between citizens and the authorities, was intended to ensure that temporary emotions or social tensions would not determine the final choice. Of course, today is different, and regardless of whether the system is direct or indirect, it is precisely to these emotions and tensions that the candidates are trying to appeal.
- It is also worth highlighting the special role of states in this system, because it is the electoral votes from individual states that become the most valuable asset, which from the point of view of the principle of federalism and the competence of states to conduct elections seems fundamental. However, regardless of the controversy, today every candidate knows what the rules of the game are and that it is necessary to fight for electoral votes in specific states, therefore, from the point of view of the candidates themselves, the real fight is to correctly read the social mood and reach the majority of voters in several, a dozen states. Although for us the result itself, in which the winner is not the one who has won more popular votes, but the one who has exceeded 270 electoral votes, seems absurd, for the participants of the American electoral process, this is the norm to which everyone is accustomed.
Donald Trump is again not the favorite of the election, at least in the polls-what would have to happen for him to win? What would the circumstances be?
- Donald Trump again in the polls loses, but again can make a surprise and win in the race for the White House. Of course, there are many factors, and today it is difficult to assume which one will decide. Usually elections are decided by a certain group of undecideds, that is, those for whom the choice is not made on the basis of automatism: I support the Republicans or the Democrats. It is they who can tip the scales to one side, which prompts us to recall another factor, namely turnout.
- From the mobilization of voters of individual candidates depends on what will be the final result. For example, less mobilization of the electorate of racial minorities in 2016 had an impact on the final result of Hillary Clinton. Currently, African-American or Latino voters are also playing cards, because traditionally the majority of minority representatives support Biden, the only question is whether they will participate in the elections.
- Another factor is the way we vote. It is really difficult today to predict what the result of the postal vote will be and for whom this method of voting is more beneficial. Assuming that older people will vote this way, much depends on the region from which the postal votes will come. It seems that Trump has a slight advantage among the older electorate, but it should not be forgotten that it was the elderly who were most vulnerable to the negative effects of the pandemic, which the president largely failed to cope with.
- If the public mood were to decide, the majority of Americans would vote for Joe Biden. Nevertheless, we should not forget about two important issues: the skills and experience of the presidential staff to count the electoral votes, which brought him success four years ago, as well as the underestimated result of Trump, who always has understated polls. That is why, although there are many indications of Biden, I do not believe that he is a certain candidate for victory, because, as we know, the poll support does not reflect the number of electoral votes in individual states.
How will the pandemic and the postal vote affect this election? Can it really be that we will not know the winner soon?
- When we know the winner, we'll find out Wednesday morning. As trivial as this sounds, I am talking about the moment when it will be known whether one of the candidates has a significant advantage or the result is close. If the polls do not lie, then Biden should win with Trump by a significant number of votes, and then after a few hours after the polls close, the result will be known. However, the small advantage of one of the candidates, as well as the need to count all the postal votes, will mean that we will have to wait for the final result, and in the extreme case, the process of counting the votes may take longer if one of the parties questioned the conduct of the elections or the way the votes were counted.
- We were faced with such a situation in 2000, so anything is possible, including even getting involved in the process of determining the elections by the Supreme Court, although I sincerely doubt that this will happen this time. There is no doubt that the large proportion of votes received by correspondence lengthens the process of counting the votes and announcing the final result, so we can see Americans and the world holding their breath for a few days before the winner is announced.
- The paradox is that, under the constitution, the electors meet in mid-December, and Congress announces in early January of the following year, who is the president, although, of course, the result is usually known at the end of the counting process, and I would like it to be so now. I mention this because there are voices about the possible non-recognition of the election result by either side, which would not only set a precedent, but would further undermine the position of American democracy in the world.
"As far as the pandemic is concerned, it has primarily affected the election campaign, including, in particular, the use of campaign tools by both sides, as well as the debate on the state of the health service in the United States. This is correlated, on the one hand, with the president's depreciation of the threat, which he himself occupied with infection and isolation, and, on the other, with Trump's struggle with the Democratic-backed health care system giving the federal government broad powers.
"Adding the postal vote, we have no doubt that 2020 will be dominated by the coronavirus and its consequences. However, I do not think that the problem of the health system is the only one that attracts the attention of Americans. As always, it's the economy, immigration policy, and security at large that counts. In the latter context, riots and racial tensions can mobilize supporters and opponents of movements such as Black Lives Matter, which, ultimately, will see the highest turnout in the last few election cycles.
Which states this year should be most closely watched as an indication of the final outcome of the elections?
- Traditionally, as every four years, the game is concentrated in a certain group of states referred to as swing states. It is here that in every election cycle the tide of victory leans to one side or the other of the political scene. We're talking about states where you can't get the most votes, but there are enough of them that a win in most of these states will pave the way for a candidate to the White House.
- This year we should look closely at such states as Florida, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where in total you can get more than 100 electoral votes. Nor should we discount the role of Texas, which has traditionally been Republican but has recently become increasingly democratic, as demonstrated by the recent congressional elections.
- In 2016, Trump's staff did a better job of correctly defining the states that were key to the victory of the Republican candidate. The Democrats are aware of this, which is why we are seeing more campaign involvement in these states than ever before, although due to the pandemic, direct access to voters is limited.
What is the demographic distribution of support between the two candidates-who will vote for Trump, and who for Biden?
- Let's remember that a significant proportion of Americans vote according to the party affiliation. It's about 30%. permanent supporters of Democrats and Republicans, and the remaining 1/3 are the so-called politically or ideologically independent. Of course, not all Republican and Democratic supporters go to the polls, but those who cast their vote tend to identify with the candidate indicated by the party convention.
- Given the changing demographics in the US, it is necessary to see closer ties of representatives of racial and ethnic minorities with the Democratic Party, although it is not so that African-Americans and Latinos are 100 percent. they support Joe Biden. There is no doubt that the choice of Kamala Harris for vice president is a good move by Democrats counting on both the support of minorities and women. On the other hand, about two-thirds of Americans are white voters and here the votes are split between Trump and Biden.
- It is significant that many white Americans live in swing states, where the final battle for the presidency will take place. Therefore, Trump's chances for re-election should not be underestimated, since his electorate is among white residents of the lower and middle-upper classes. The age of voters should not play a big role, although among younger Americans today you can find a greater number of supporters of the Democratic Party. I will repeat myself, but much will depend not so much on demography as on turnout, that is, on the mobilization of individual groups of voters by candidates and their staffs.
What follows from the fact that there have not yet been such advanced age candidates for the office of President? Is this just a coincidence or is this some kind of phenomenon?
- On the one hand, the fact that two advanced white men are facing each other is nothing new in the history of American presidential campaigns. Historically, both among the candidates and the presidents themselves, the majority were older people or politically more experienced, which was often raised during debates between candidates of different ages. The most extreme example of such a situation was in 1984, when, during a debate between 73-year-old President Reagan and his 56-year-old Democratic counterpart Walter Mondale, the president skillfully referred to his competitor's "too young age and inexperience".
- On the other hand, the observation of the American political scene and the course of the recent primaries among Democrats indicates a fairly large number of young politicians who will be the future leaders of this party. However, Biden's experience, especially as a former vice president, is supposed to be, in the opinion of the Democratic Party establishment, a guarantee to defeat Trump. The failure of Hillary Clinton in 2016 was a signal that America is not ready for a woman president, so the Democrats bet on Biden, whose most serious rival was... an even older Bernie Sanders...
- Personally, I think, no offense to those experienced in politics, that starting the presidency at the age of 78 is a certain risk for ensuring political continuity, but-although I wish Biden a lot of health and energy-I think this is a one-term president. Therefore, it is worth looking not only at his vision of America, but also at who the vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris is. Who knows if it's not the next president of the United States.
Is Joe Biden really the strongest candidate the Democrats had in the state? Why exactly did he distance himself from his rivals with such fierce competition in this year's primaries?
Joe Biden is certainly not perfect. He is accused of being deeply embedded in the political establishment responsible for the state of American politics and economy, of lacking the charisma required of leaders, and his opponents raise many ambiguities related to his past political or economic activities. Whether he is the strongest candidate of the Democrats, it will become clear if he defeats Donald Trump.
"The primaries showed that, despite the initial weakness of his campaign, he was able to dominate its content on the Democratic side in a short time, presenting himself as a candidate with a lot of experience and with centrist views, which corresponds to the majority of voters of the Democratic Party. In addition, from the beginning he was strongly supported by the party leaders, which, in the case of the Democrats, is very important, given the way the votes of the delegates choosing the presidential candidate at the national party convention are counted. While other moderate candidates quickly disappeared in the race, most of them were not well known to the wider public. Meanwhile, the longest resistance was the one who four years ago was close to winning the party nomination, namely Bernie Sanders.
- Of course, it is difficult to assume that today 79-year-old Sanders will be the future of the Democrats, but who knows if the further polarization of American society will not lead to an increase in the chances of candidates with more left-wing views, similar to those presented by Sanders. Congresswoman Alexandria Occasio-Cortez is the hope of the American left, but it seems that today she could not pose a real threat to the Republican candidates. Obama's win raised the belief that young politicians, often of different ethnicities, are the future of the Democratic Party, but let's not forget that at heart a significant part of US citizens have moderate, centrist views. Hence the difficulty in achieving ultimate success by such candidates as Sanders or Occasio-Cortez.
- However, I would like to draw attention to Kamala Harris, who even now would not stand a chance in a confrontation with Trump, but in four years she can count in the final race for the White House, as a candidate of racial minorities and many American women. Her possible competition with Elizabeth Warren would certainly be very attractive not only for Democrats but for the entire electoral system in the United States.
Can the Supreme Court play a role in this conservative-dominated election?
- Hypothetically, the court may be asked to resolve a conflict arising from a flawed vote counting process, as was the case in 2000. Then conservative judges ordered to stop the process of re-counting votes in Florida at a time when George W. Bush was leading, contributing to his gaining the electoral votes in the state and winning the election. Today we hear about the undermining of the postal vote, or the possibility of non-recognition of the election result by the candidates.
- Although I personally doubt that we will face another constitutional crisis in the US, it is impossible, of course, to exclude an attempt to involve the court or Congress in the process of determining the election result. The conservative majority on the court is meant to guarantee that, in a crisis situation, the justices will vote in favour of a Republican candidate, but-despite the ongoing politicisation of the American judiciary-I hope that the integrity of the Supreme Court and its impartiality will not be put to the test.
Much attention is paid to how President Trump can react to a possible defeat in this election (whether he will recognize their result, etc.)- are the concerns raised in this context justified in your opinion?
- Trump has accustomed us to the fact that you should not get used to anything that has to do with his presidency. He repeatedly changed his mind on important and less important political, social or economic issues. He behaved in a way that could be described as unpredictable, just as his victory in 2016 and the entire presidency were unpredictable. Therefore, I do not presume to predict how the president will react to a possible defeat.
- The course of this campaign shows that more in it were negative emotions than the actual discussion on fundamental for the average American issues. Therefore, this unpredictable campaign can end in an unpredictable way, both in terms of the outcome of the elections and the potential reactions of the candidates and their staffs.
"The struggle is for leadership in a country that is decimated by the pandemic, experiencing social and economic crises, but it is still the United States that aspires to a position of power in the world. It would be difficult for anyone to accept defeat, especially if the loser has a deep sense of his own uniqueness and the uniqueness of his presidency. But let's wait until Wednesday, because it may turn out that Joe Biden will have to swallow the bitterness of defeat. Let us remember that we have the year 2020, in which everything is really possible.
