How is the relatively complex electoral system in the USA described in those researches? Among other things, it is the majority electoral system, ie if it ends up 49.5 versus 50.5, which is a fairly balanced result, the winner still takes everything.
According to surveys, Biden should have won by seven or eight percentage points nationwide. In the end, it will be about three. And now the question is how tight the election is. If they were unambiguous, such an error would not play such a big role. But when it comes to close voting, such as Brexit, it is a big deviation that can change the outcome. In the USA, one more thing plays a role – in the system of voters and states, all you have to do is make a mistake, for example in two.
At this point, it should be mentioned that it’s not just research, but also companies that aggregate it and make those predictions of the type – Joe Biden’s chances of winning are 95 percent. Although they have improved since 2016, in my opinion they still underestimate the fact that the results in the states and the errors of research are not independent. If five points from research in Wisconsin are not met, it is very likely that the same mistake will be made in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and other surrounding states.
The fact that Biden leads everywhere gives false certainty that research cannot be wrong everywhere. But if their mistakes are due to what I have said – not catching up with a section of the population, shifting between the undecided and poor turnout – then this is usually the case in all states at once. At least within a region like the Midwest. I also thought Biden would win, but I wasn’t so sure.
And as for the American electoral system?
In my opinion, the American electoral system is destroying politics a lot. The first thing is that Democrats have been at a disadvantage of about three percentage points in electoral college in recent years. When a Democrat wins by three percent nationwide, the result is a roll of the dice, when he wins narrowly, he almost has no chance. That alone would be OK. But it combines with an election to the Senate, where it elects states, not people. And Democrats won’t win it, even if they win by five to ten percent.
Many key things in the US depend on the President-Senate combination. Trump, for example, appointed three constitutional judges only because of this combination in the electoral system. If the Constitutional Judge had been confirmed by the House, or if the electoral college had been reformed, he would never have succeeded.
The second problem with the presidential election system is that it completely deflects the political debate. The weight of voters’ votes depends on whether they are from those swing states (Traditionally balanced states, which in the final decide on the overall result of the election, ed. note). What worries a person in a democratic California, New York and Washington or in the conservative south, almost no one needs to care. This is the Midwest and a few other states. It will also delay national issues.
Instead of public health being the main agenda of the election, as required by about seventy percent of people, faction in Pennsylvania is being addressed. Which is a locally important topic, but not a key US pain. Likewise, no one can enforce meaningful “gun reform” involving the regulation of offensive weapons and greater control of sales, for which most of the US would be in favor of losing in the Midwest.
Imagine that there is a majority system in the Czech Republic across districts. The parties merge into two. Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, etc. are clear. And the head of the Liberal Party, Bartoš, and the head of the conservative populists, Babiš, are arguing over the reconstruction of hospitals in Mělník and roads in the Jičín region, because these districts are deciding elections. I’m kidding, but not much.
Electoral college can also be easily changed. There are suggestions that the number of voters in the states should match their population (today, Wyoming has 3.2 times more voters than California per capita). And for the national winner to receive a bonus of, for example, fifty voters. That would, I think, unblock this situation.
–
