A strange way to pick America’s president
In the US presidential election, the most popular candidate doesn’t always win. Instead, a handful of swing voters in a handful of battleground states will pick the next president.
By Steven Hill
The countdown to the final days of the US presidential election on 5 November has begun. For months, former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have been locked in a roller coaster ride to see who will become one of the world’s most powerful leaders.
But strangely, in this only-in-America presidential election process, some voters count more than others. Unlike the presidents of France and Turkey, who are directly elected by a national popular vote, the US president is indirectly elected. Using an antiquated 18th-century method called the Electoral College, the election is conducted as separate contests in each of the 50 individual states, plus the nation’s capital, District of Columbia.
What’s odd about this process is that a candidate who wins more votes nationwide can lose to an opponent who wins more of the individual states. In 2016, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump nationwide by nearly 3 million votes, yet she still lost the election.
But it gets even stranger. Most states are so lopsided – either tilting strongly in favor of a Democrat or Republican – that pollsters and experts can already tell you which candidate will win 43 out of the 50 states. Only seven battleground states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada – will decide the winner. What is supposed to be a national contest to pick the country’s chief executive will be decided by a handful of states with a combined population of about 60 million out of a total US population of 330 million.
In these swing states, the campaign battles are fierce. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to carpet bomb the airwaves with TV, radio and social media ads. In the other 43 states, there is no campaigning at all, other than when the candidates show up to raise money in wealthy enclaves.
But here’s where the process gets really strange. Within each of these battleground states, most voters already know if they are going to vote Democrat or Republican. So the winner in each of these seven swing states will be decided by a handful of undecided voters – who are called “swing voters.”
In this truly oddball system, the number of Americans with an effective vote that actually decides who will become president is vanishingly small – maybe 5% of the nation’s population. That’s because a few states – and a few groups of voters in those states – count more than others.
The political candidates and their highly paid consultants strategize how to target voters and slice and dice the electorate in these seven states in ways that help them sway these swing voters. It results in very divisive campaigning, because it is often effective to pit one group against the other.
Who are the swing voters?
So what groups of swing voters will be most important this year?
Voters in favor of extreme gun rights are very influential in six of the battleground states. While labor unions usually support the Democratic candidate, the gun issue is particularly touchy among a significant minority of union members, such as auto workers in Michigan and blue collar workers in Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Led by well-funded advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association, extreme gun rights supporters have been able to exert great influence in presidential and congressional elections. The power of these swing voters is the major reason why the US lags other civilized democracies like Germany in enacting sensible gun safety laws.
Another group of swing voters is known as Trump Democrats. Hundreds of counties in various states that had voted for Barack Obama twice, suddenly flipped and voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. Most of them will vote for Trump again this year, as they are attracted to his brand of authoritarian paternalism in which Trump acts like the Big Daddy who can fix all their ills. Those are votes that the Democrats are trying to win back.
Compared to past elections, two new groups of voters are suddenly more in the “undecided” category – Black and Latino voters. These voters have always been the most reliable Democratic voters, and most will still vote for Kamala Harris. However, 92% of Black voters supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, and 90% supported Joe Biden in 2020. In the latest polls, only 78% are supporting Harris – even though she is partly Black.
Similarly with Latinos. 68% supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 but only 56% are supporting Harris. That leakage among Black and Latino voters could contribute to Harris losing key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Arizona. Many of these disaffected voters feel they have not benefited from Democrats’ policies, even as high inflation has eaten into their paychecks. The Harris campaign is now making a concerted effort to woo back these voters, so those numbers may rise a bit before election day. But Harris is having to spend time and money to win over these voters that she had hoped would automatically be in her column.
Jewish and Muslim voters in battleground states
One of the more interesting clashes over swing voters is a byproduct of the war in the Middle East. Despite small numbers of Jewish voters in the US – about 2.4% – they turn out in high numbers, most often for Democrats, and are concentrated in a few influential areas. About 78% of Jewish voters voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but Kamala Harris has a narrow lead among Jewish voters, with only 53% favoring her over Trump.
Pennsylvania has about 300,000 voting-age Jews in a state Joe Biden won by roughly 80,000 votes. Biden won Arizona by about 10,500 votes, Georgia by 12,000 votes and Wisconsin by 21,000 votes, with Jewish populations of 124,000, 141,000 and 33,000 respectively.
But Jewish influence is not just about counting votes. Since US candidates must privately finance their elections, large campaign contributions from wealthy Jewish donors to both Democratic and Republican candidates allow them to play a disproportionately influential role.
Steven Hill
A newer horizon among religious-based swing voters is the growing influence of Muslim-American voters in several battleground states. As the merciless bombing of Palestinian and Lebanese homes and lives has continued, funded and largely unrestrained by the Biden administration, Muslim-American voters are threatening to withhold their votes from Democrats. Their numbers are small but mighty and could certainly make a difference.
In Arizona, which Biden won by only 10,500 votes, there are an estimated 110,00 Muslim adherents. Similarly in Georgia (12,000 vote margin and 123,000 Muslim adherents), Wisconsin (21,000 vote margin and 69,000 Muslim adherents) and Michigan (150,000 vote margin and 242,000 Muslim adherents). Muslim-Americans voted overwhelmingly (69%) for Biden in the 2020 presidential election. But alarmingly, a recent survey found Harris with only 41% support among Arab American voters, less than Trump’s 42%.
Each of these swing voter “groups of passion” are a key part of the complicated landscape that will decide the winners in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. The truth is, in the US system, if you are the right group of swing voters and live in the right state or district, and the election is close enough, you can bring powerful politicians to their knees.
Steven Hill is editor and main author of DemocracySOS and the author of the book “Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope In an Insecure Age.” You can reach out to him under @StevenHill1776.