U.S. Elections: What do they tell us about America’s future?

In a fiercely contested election with global significance, experts Thom Reilly co-director of the Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy at Arizona State University (ASU) and Fernanda Caso, journalist and political analyst, highlight several key points about the future of democracy in the United States, drawing from the lessons and insights of this year’s electoral process.

Political stability

This is a critical issue, as the public has a lingering sense of danger regarding the current electoral process. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 72% of voters believe that if Harris loses, she will accept the results and acknowledge Trump’s victory. However, only 24% think that if Trump loses, he will concede defeat, while 74% believe he will not.

This creates tension in the country and among its citizens, as the reaction from Trump supporters could jeopardize the political and social stability of the nation, which has long been characterized by respect for democratic values. Fernanda Caso emphasized during the “Vota-neando” event in Mexico City that “political leaders at this moment should be acutely aware of the emotions and reactions they might provoke among the public.”

Gender gap

The gender gap in voting is significant in this election. Women tend to support Kamala Harris and participate more actively, while men are more inclined to vote for Trump. Educational attainment also plays a crucial role in Trump’s support.

With over 244 million eligible American voters, Thom Reilly noted that this election will offer essential insights into voter profiles and behavior. “Ethnicity, age, race, geography, and the gender gap are key factors that will reshape the electoral landscape,” he explained.

Future of the Electoral College

The Electoral College is the constitutional mechanism for the indirect election of the president and vice president. Instead of voting directly for a presidential candidate, citizens vote for electors representing their state in the Electoral College. These electors then cast the votes that determine the president. 538 electors are in play, with 270 needed to secure the presidency.

Both parties have criticized the Electoral College for not fully reflecting the popular vote. There have been instances where a candidate won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, such as in the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump secured the presidency.

According to Thom Reilly, if Trump wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, it could reignite the debate over its elimination. However, any change is unlikely in the short term, given the complexity of amending the Constitution. This process requires two-thirds of the Senate and the House and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Ground game

This election will also provide valuable lessons about ground game efforts—mobilizing voters to turn out and collecting voter data in the field. Democrats have a long-standing tradition of field operations that help them understand their electorate. For the first time, Republicans have outsourced their field operations to the private sector, introducing a third player into the mix.

Will this effort be enough to tip the scales? Reilly believes this new player in the field could offer Republicans a significant advantage in this electoral process. This issue will also be crucial in redefining how field operations are conducted in future elections.