Philippa Kaur

Now that the elections are over, you might be left feeling exhausted, despondent and disillusioned – whether your preferred candidate won or not. You are not alone.

Survey after survey has found that Americans agree that the political system is not serving them.

Americans say they are angry at the political dysfunction, disgusted with the divisive rhetoric, weary from the lack of options, and feel unheard and unrepresented. I am a mathematician who studies quantitative aspects of democracy, and in my view, the reason for this widespread dissatisfaction is evident: The mechanisms of American democracy are broken at a fundamental level.

Research shows that there are clear mathematical fixes for these malfunctions that would implement sound democratic practices supported by evidence. They won’t solve every ailment of American democracy: For example, Altering Supreme Court rulings or expanding voting access are more political or administrative than they are based in math. Nevertheless, each of these changes – especially in combination with one another – could make American democracy more responsive to its citizens.

Problem: Plurality voting

Plurality voting, or the winner-take-all method, is how all but a handful of the nation’s 520,000 elected officials are chosen. It is also mathematically the worst, because it can give victory to a candidate who does not have majority support. This method is rife with mathematical problems, such as vote-splitting and the spoiler effect, which both deliver victory to less popular candidates.

Solution: Ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to put their preferences in order, rather than just registering their top selection.

This system, used in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere around the world, as well is in over 50 jurisdictions in the U.S., including Alaska, New York City and Minneapolis, elects a candidate that has broad support. Because voters are not worried about wasting their votes, this method allows people to show support for third-party candidates even if they don’t win. This method also punishes negative campaigning because candidates can win even if they are some voters’ second or third choices, not just their first choice.

Using mathematical principles and methods, it’s possible to rebalance democracy.
Andrii Yalanskyi/iStock / Getty Images Plus

Problem: Electoral College

The Electoral College is a unique and uniquely archaic mechanism that no other country in the world wants anything to do with. Its legacy of slavery and the Constitution’s framers’ skepticism about the populace being smart enough to make good decisions for themselves is only exacerbated by its many mathematical problems, which give some states’ voters more power than others when electing a president.

Solution: Popular vote

The evidence shows that switching to a popular vote would eliminate those biases. But even if 63% of Americans support getting rid of the Electoral College, history shows that the constitutional amendment required is not likely to happen.

A way to avoid a need for a constitutional change could be the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, currently supported by 17 states, including California and Illinois, and Washington, D.C. It would require the electors from the states in the compact to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. But it does not take effect until enough states join that their combined electoral votes reach the winning threshold of 270. Right now, states with a total of 209 electoral votes back the measure.

Problem: Single-winner districts

Because of winner-take-all voting, congressional and state officeholders don’t necessarily reflect the district’s partisan makeup, giving disproportionate representation to one party.

Solution: Multi-winner districts

Most democracies around the world have geographically larger districts that elect multiple candidates at the same time. Multi-winner districts are designed to achieve proportional representation. Right now, all nine Massachusetts representatives in the U.S. House are Democrats, even though one-third of the state’s voters typically opt for Republican candidates. But if Massachusetts had three congressional districts instead of nine, and each elected three House members, one-third of the seats would go to Republicans, commensurate with the proportion of the state’s Republican voters. Multi-winner districts also effectively eliminate gerrymandering.

South Carolina state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Columbia, questions his Republican colleagues’ new map of congressional districts on Jan. 20, 2022.
Jeffrey Collins/AP

Problem: Party primaries

About 10% of eligible voters cast ballots in congressional primaries. Those voters often represent a fired-up base that can elevate fringe or extreme candidates who go on to run in general races that are often not competitive due to a confluence of factors such as plurality voting and single-winner districts.

The final figures are not yet available for 2024, but this one-tenth fraction of voters effectively decided 83% of congressional seats in 2020. Representatives mold their politics to pander to the demands of that base and can keep their jobs for decades with little effort.

Presidential primaries have their own mathematical flaws that distort the preferences of the voters and reward polarizing candidates who can turn out the base.

Solution: Open primaries, or none at all

A system of open, nonpartisan primaries is employed in California, Colorado and Nevada. Three or four top candidates advance to the general election, which is then conducted using ranked-choice voting. This structure increases voter participation and delivers more representative outcomes.

A simpler solution could be to eliminate primary elections and hold a single, open general election with ranked-choice voting.

A 1913 postcard shows the U.S. House of Representatives in the year its membership was fixed by law at 435.
vintagehalloweencollector via Flickr, CC BY-ND

Problem: Size of the House of Representatives

The very first amendment the framers of the Constitution proposed was one that would have required the size of the House of Representatives to grow as the nation’s population increased. For close contact between officeholders and constituents, they liked a ratio of 30,000 to 50,000 people per House member. Their amendment was never ratified.

The ratio today is 760,000 people per representative. The size of the House is set by law and has been fixed at 435 members since 1913. It is hard to imagine that a representative can speak knowledgeably about so many constituents or understand their collective needs and preferences.

Solution: Make it bigger

To reduce the ratio, the House would need to be bigger. With a national population over 337 million, James Madison’s preference would require more than 6,700 House members. That’s unwieldy. Most democracies either intentionally follow or seem to have naturally settled on a different formula, in which the size of the legislature is about equal to the cube root of the country’s population.

For the U.S., that number is currently nearly 700, which would put the population-to-representative ratio at 475,000-to-1. This would still upset Madison, but it’s considerably more representative than the current state of affairs.

Could the Capitol handle such an expansion? Architectural studies show that won’t be a problem. More

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

Crossing the Divide

What prompted the idea for the course?

I developed the idea for this course in 2016 during an Amtrak writing residency program. I spent over two weeks crisscrossing the United States via train while working on my 2021 book about the French National Railways and World War II. After binge-watching the country and gabbing with strangers, I knew the train would be the coolest classroom. I wrote some articles about its value for Smithsonian magazine.

The increasing polarization and the then-upcoming U.S. presidential election made May 2024 the perfect time to invite graduate students studying peace, conflict and justice to join me.

Students visited the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala.
John Coletti

What does the course explore?

Students met two times at the Kroc School of Peace Studies within the University of San Diego to discuss our forthcoming two-week trip’s scheduled stops and assignments, which would include talking with strangers, different readings, keeping a journal and producing individual blogs.

We rode Amtrak trains between states and rented vans to move about within states. We departed from San Diego’s Old Town Transit Center, heading first to Los Angeles to visit Homeboy Industries, the largest gang rehabilitation program. Then, over the course of two weeks, we stopped in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Washington D.C., visiting places that cut across various divides: red and blue, eco-friendly and pro-fossil fuel, as well as urban and rural populations. On the train, we got to know each other, made new friends, watched the passing landscape, read, and wrote in our journals.

We then visited Patagonia, Arizona, a 900-person town that has the gift of being one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the USA and the curse of resting atop critical minerals about to be extracted for national security. Ecologists say the mining extraction project, known as the Hermosa project, will likely have a significant negative impact on the area’s water supply and endangered species in the region, as well as residents living near the manganese processing plant.

After 26 hours on the train, we arrived in Houston. There we visited the Houston Museum of Natural Science to understand how the petroleum industry explains – or does not discuss – its role in climate change. In New Orleans, we visited the Whitney Plantation, a nonprofit museum on the site of a former slave plantation. This museum tries to educate visitors about the South’s history from the perspective of the enslaved. We also studied the prison conditions at Louisiana State Penitentiary, where incarcerated persons engage in physically harmful forced labor.

In Birmingham, Alabama, we attended a church service at the 16th Street Baptist Church, made famous by the 1963 bombing by white supremacists that killed four girls. In Montgomery, Alabama, we visited the Legacy of Slavery Museum and a lynching memorial.

We ended in Washington, D.C., where we visited the National Archives, which houses the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

In between our stops, we spent time on the train talking to strangers and getting a sense of the country’s vast landscape – both politically and geographically. We also made a short video about the trip.

The class stops in Houston along its two-week, cross-country tour.
Tony Campos, CC BY

Why is this course relevant now?

According to the Pew Research Center, the American public remains more deeply and bitterly politically polarized than at any time in the past two decades. There has been an increase in both “ideological polarization,” meaning political disagreement, as well as “affective polarization,” an increased antipathy and animosity toward others with whom we disagree. Some people fear that these divides can lead the country into civil war and eventually cause democracy to fail.

I wanted to explore with students just how polarized the country felt. I also wanted us to react to this polarization by reaching out to others, rather than recoiling.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

When we rely on our smartphones and televisions to tell us about our country, it’s easy to become afraid and withdraw from public life and to avoid strangers. We did the opposite and found many wonderful people as well as many challenges, such as torturous, forced prison labor, resistance within the fossil fuel industry to acknowledge or respond to its role in climate change, the difficultly of safely extracting critical minerals from fragile ecosystems, and tensions over what U.S. children will learn about the country’s historical practice of slavery.

What materials does the course feature?

Site visits, local newspapers and strangers. Prior to departure they read parts of Monica Guzman’s “I Never Thought of it That Way” to prepare them to be open to new ideas and people. They also read academic articles about polarization and watched a PBS clip about national divides. Students found the 2024 documentary “God and Country,” about Christian nationalism, especially powerful.

Along the way, they read websites of the sites we planned to visit, as well as local newspapers, including the Patagonia Regional Times, Houston Chronicle and The Birmingham Times. Supplementary articles included readings about book bans in Texas.

What will the course prepare students to do?

I want the course to help students feel more confident engaging with strangers and exploring connection, instead of assuming difference. They also become better versed in some of the challenges of our time – including climate change, mining impacts, racial divides, legacies of slavery – as well as approaches to addressing these conflicts. They learned how to seek out different perspectives and embrace complexity without becoming immobilized. Several students dedicated their final capstone project to exploring more deeply the mining impacts in Patagonia, Arizona, and meeting with stakeholders to find ways to lessen the environmental impact of this mining work. More

The United States presents a paradox: Though the media and public opinion suggest it is a nation deeply divided along partisan lines, surveys reveal that Americans share significant common ground on many core values and political issues.

As a political philosopher, I am deeply concerned about the perceived contrast between the public’s shared political concerns and the high level of polarization that is dividing the electorate.

Sharing common ground on key issues

Despite the prevailing narrative of polarization, Americans frequently agree on essential issues.

For instance, there is widespread support for high-quality health care that is accessible to all and for stronger gun-control regulations. Remarkably, many Americans advocate for both the right to bear arms and additional restrictions on firearms.

There is strong support for fundamental democratic principles, including equal protection under the law, voting rights, religious freedoms, freedom of assembly and speech, and a free press.

On critical issues such as climate change, a majority of citizens acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change and endorse the development of renewable energy. Similarly, support for women’s reproductive rights, including the right to an abortion, is widespread.

Though Republicans tend to be more concerned about the economy when they vote, both Republicans and Democrats rank it highly as a top political priority. Despite a currently strong economy by many standards, however, supporters of both parties believe the economy is performing poorly.

This fact is likely the result of a combination of pandemic-related factors, from reduced spending and increased saving during the height of the pandemic to lingering inflation, partly triggered by the pandemic. Whatever the reason for this shared pessimism over the economy, it clearly helped Donald Trump win the 2024 election.

Overall, Americans have a positive view of immigration. That sentiment has declined in recent years, however, as most Americans now want to see rates of immigration reduced – Republicans more so than Democrats.

Part of the tension in the nation’s thinking about immigration is likely the result of a political culture that favors sensational stories and disinformation over more sober consideration of related issues and challenges. For instance, much of this election’s discourse over immigration was marred by fictional and bigoted accounts of immigrants eating pets and inaccurate portrayals of most immigrants as criminals. It should be evident that even shared political perceptions aren’t always based on good evidence or reasons.

Despite the existence of so much common ground, Americans see the nation as polarized. Shared values and concerns matter little if constant exposure to disinformation makes it nearly impossible for half the population to sort fact from fiction.

Believing there is conflict can itself breed more conflict.
wildpixel/iStock / Getty Images Plus

The effect of perception

The perception of division itself can fuel distrust where common ground might otherwise be found among citizens.

Even with substantial consensus on many issues, the perception of polarization often drives public discourse. This misalignment can be exacerbated by partisans with something to gain.

Research shows that when people are told that experts are divided on an issue, such as climate change, it can lead to increased polarization. Conversely, emphasizing the fact of scientific consensus tends to unify public concern and action.

The perception among U.S. voters that they disagree more than they agree can precede and perpetuate discord. Differing political camps begin to perceive each other as foes rather than fellow citizens.

This continued perception that Americans are more divided on issues than we actually are poses an enormous threat to democracy. The biggest threat is that people begin to see even neighbors and family members who vote differently as enemies. Stress about holiday interactions with relatives who voted differently is reportedly leading some people to cancel family gatherings rather than spend time together.

Yet, Americans are still potential allies in a larger fight to realize similar political aspirations. If people are too busy attacking each other, they will miss opportunities to unite in defense of shared goals when threats emerge. In fact, they will fail to recognize the real threats to their shared values while busily stoking divisions that make them increasingly vulnerable to disinformation.

Volunteering, like these people sorting donated meals for medical patients in Colorado in 2023, can be a way to share priorities and form real connections with community members who have different political views.
Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

Bridging the gap

Recognizing the public’s shared values is an important step in healing political divides. Philosopher Robert B. Talisse has argued that one way to get started might be refocusing attention on community projects that are nonpolitical but bring together people who don’t normally think of each other as political allies.

This might include, for example, participating in civic or sports clubs, or volunteering to help with local community events. These actions are not overtly politically charged. Rather, they are collaborative in a way that supports community identity rather than partisan identity. It is an exercise in rebuilding civic trust and recognizing each other as fellow citizens, and perhaps even friends, without the tension of partisan politics. Once this trust in each other’s civic identity is healed, it can open a door for meaningful political discussion and understanding of each other’s shared concerns.

If we Americans don’t find ways to recognize our shared values, and even our shared humanity, we won’t be able to defend those values when they are challenged. More

Is it possible to bridge America’s stark political divisions?

In the wake of a presidential election that many feared could tear the U.S. apart, this question is on many people’s minds.

A record-high 80% of Americans believe the U.S. is greatly divided on “the most important values”. Ahead of the election, a similar percentage of Americans said they feared violence and threats to democracy. Almost half the country believes people on the other side of the political divide are “downright evil.”

Some say that the vitriolic rhetoric of political leaders and social media influencers is partly to blame for the country’s state of toxic polarization. Others cite social media platforms that amplify misinformation and polarization.

There is, however, reason for hope.

I say this as an anthropologist of peace and conflict. After working abroad, I began doing research on the threat of violence in the U.S. in 2016. In 2021, I published a related book, “It Can Happen Here.”

Now, I am researching polarization in the U.S. – and ways to counter it. I have visited large Make America Great Again events for my research. I have also gone to small workshops run by nonprofit organizations like Urban Rural Action that are dedicated to building social cohesion and bridging America’s divides. Some refer to the growing number of these organizations as a “bridging movement.”

Their work is not easy, but they have shown that connecting with and listening to others who hold different political views is possible.

Here are three strategies these organizations are using – and people can try to use in their own daily lives – to reduce political polarization:

1. Listen first

Pearce Godwin, a former Republican-leaning consultant from North Carolina, was one of the first “bridgers.”

In 2013, Godwin was doing Christian humanitarian work in Africa. Upset by the vitriol of U.S. politics, Godwin, who had worked on Capitol Hill, wrote a commentary, “It’s Time to Listen,” while on an overnight bus trip across Uganda.

Multiple U.S. newspapers published his column, which called for what is the starting point of most bridging work: People should listen first to understand.

Later that year, Godwin started a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization, the Listen First Project, to promote this message through activities like a 2014 “Listen First, Vote Second” public relations and media campaign.

After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Godwin decided to expand Listen First work. He established the #ListenFirst Coalition with three other similar organizations: The Village Square, Living Room Conversations and National Institute for Civil Discourse.

Today, this coalition includes over 500 organizations, whose work ranges from one-off dialogue skills workshops to longer-term projects that seek to build social cohesion in the U.S.

2. Be curious, not dogmatic

Braver Angels dates back to 2016 and is another large nonprofit organization that is part of the #ListenFirst Coalition.

On Election Day on Nov. 5, 2024, Braver Angels organized hundreds of pairs of Trump and Kamala Harris supporters to stand at polling stations and demonstrate that dialogue across the political divide is possible. Some held signs that read “Vote Red, Vote Blue, We’re All Americans Through and Through.”

During the past year, I have observed Braver Angels workshops on media bias, public education, immigration and the 2024 election.

Their fishbowl exercise stands out.

Designed by Bill Doherty, a couples therapist and co-founder of Braver Angels, the fishbowl involves a group of Republicans and Democrats talking.

People in the group take turns speaking on a particular political topic, while the others – along with a larger group of observers – listen to what they say without speaking. After peering into this “fishbowl,” each group member discusses what they discovered by listening to the other group. Many mention their “surprise” at points of agreement on certain issues and the thoughtful reasoning behind positions “on the other side” they had previously dismissed.

The exercise illustrates a key starting point of bridging work: Be curious, instead of trying to prove you are right. Learn how someone on the other side of an issue understands and perceives something.

3. Burst out of your bubble

Another key strategy to overcome division is helping people burst out of their bubble. The idea is that people can objectively detach from and examine their assumptions, and then try to explore alternative views outside their social media, news information and community silos.

One #ListenFirst Coalition partner, AllSides, tries to help people do this through a digital platform that shows how the same news of the day is being reported by left, right and center media organizations. It also has an online tool, “Rate Your Bias,” which helps users become aware of their own assumptions.

People can use these tools to compare different stances on issues like federal taxes and civil liberties – and how their own positions line up. People can also search for individual media outlets to see if the majority of other users have rated these organizations as liberal, conservative or center.

When people identify their own biases – which can become evident as they examine the media outlets they like, for example – it can help them become more curious and open. It also helps them move out of the information silos that divide people.

The bridging movement is not without its challenges. People who lean red are sometimes suspicious of these initiatives, which give people information on voting and democracy and can be perceived as having a liberal bias.

Group diversity is also a challenge. Based on my observations, Braver Angels participants tend to be older, white and educated.

And other groups, like #ListenFirst Coalition partner Urban Rural Action, have to spend considerable time and effort getting a diverse range of people in their programs.

But, given America’s stark political divisions, I think there is a clear need and desire for the depolarization work these groups do.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are concerned about the current state of polarization in the nation. These bridging groups show a way forward and offer strategies to help Americans build bridges across the country’s deepening political divide. More

The spectacular comeback of US president-elect Donald Trump has taken the world by surprise. No doubt people can point to various explanations for his election victory, but in my view, the science of information will pave the way towards deeper insights. Unless the Democrats – and their counterparts around the world – can develop a better understanding of how people receive and reject information, they will never fully understand what happened or successfully fight elections in the future.

There is a fundamental law of nature, known in physical science as the second law. This says that, over time, noise will overwhelm information and uncertainties will dominate. Order will be swamped by confusion and chaos. From a single particle to the whole universe, every system known to science obeys this law. That includes political systems, or societies.

Whenever there is progress in communication technology, people circulate more and more inessential or inaccurate information. In a political system, this is what leads to the noise domination described by the second law.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

In science, the quantity that measures the degree of uncertainty is known as entropy. The second law therefore says that entropy can only increase, at least on average.

While entropy does not reduce spontaneously, it is possible to reduce it by spending energy – that is, at a cost. This is exactly what life is about – we create internal order, thus reducing entropy, by consuming energy in the form of food.

For a biological system to survive, it has to reduce uncertainties about the state of its environment. So there are two opposing trends: we don’t like uncertainties and try to reduce them. But we live in a world dominated by growing uncertainties. Understanding the balance of these two forces holds the key to appreciating some of the most perplexing social phenomena – such as why people would vote for a man who has been convicted of multiple crimes and strongly signalled his autocratic tendencies.

The world is filled with uncertainties and information technology is enhancing the level of that uncertainty at an incredible pace. The development of AI is only propelling the increase of uncertainty and will continue to do so at an unimaginable scale.

In the unregulated wild west of the internet, tech giants have created a monster that feeds us with noise and uncertainty. The result is rapidly-growing entropy – there is a sense of disorder at every turn.

Each of us, as a biological system, has the desire to reduce this entropy. That is why, for example, we instinctively avoid information sources that are not aligned with our views. They will create uncertainties. If you are a liberal or leftwing voter and have found yourself avoiding the news after Trump’s re-election, it’s probably linked to your desire to minimise entropy.

The need for certainty

People are often puzzled about why societies are becoming more polarised and information is becoming more segmented. The answer is simple – the internet, social media, AI and smartphones are pumping out entropy at a rate unseen in the history of Earth. No biological system has ever encountered such a challenge – even if it is a self-imposed one. Drastic actions are required to regain certainties, even if they are false certainties.

Trump has grasped the fact that people need certainty. He repeatedly offered words of reassurances – “I will fix it”. Whether he will is a more complex question but thinking about that will only generate uncertainties – so it’s better avoided. The Democrats, in contrast, merely offered the assurance of a status quo of prolonged uncertainties.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Gaza, Kamala Harris remarked that she would do everything in her power to bring an end to the war. But the Biden-Harris administration has been doing exactly that for some time with little progress being made.

Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Ukraine, Harris remarked that she would stand up against Putin. But the Biden-Harris administration has been merely sending weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war. If that is what “standing up against Putin” means, then most Americans would prefer to see a fall in their grocery prices from an end to the war.

Some advice is best left unsaid.
Flicker/Number 10, CC BY

Harris argued that Trump is a fascist. This may prove to be true, but what that means exactly is unclear to most Americans.

While Harris’s campaign message of hope was a good initiative, the Democrats failed in delivering certainty and assurance. By the same token they failed to control the information space. Above all, they failed the Americans because, while Trump may well bring an end to the war in Ukraine and Gaza in some form, his climate policy will be detrimental to all Americans, with lasting impacts.

Without understanding the science of information, the blame game currently underway will not bring Democrats anywhere. And there are lessons to be learned for other centre-left governments, like the UK Labour government.

It is not entirely inconceivable that the former prime minister Boris Johnson, encouraged by the events in the US, hopes for a dramatic return to the throne at the next general election. If so, prime minister Keir Starmer must find a way to avoid following the footsteps of Biden and Harris. He must provide people with certainty and assurance. More

Polling of the US election has been widely criticised following the outcome of last Tuesday’s ballot. For weeks in the run-up to polling day the polls were widely reported as saying that the result was too close to call. Not only was there little difference between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in terms of national vote intentions, but this was also the position in seven “swing” states where the outcome would decide who would win the electoral college vote.

As a result, we were warned it might take days for the winner to be known while the final ballots were counted in what could be razor-thin margins in those swing states.

Yet, in the event, people in Britain woke up on Wednesday morning to be told it was clear that Trump had won. Not only was he ahead in all seven swing states, including in the three where Democrat hopes were highest – Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – but he also had a decisive lead in the overall national vote. The polls had it seemed once again got it all wrong.

However, now that nearly all the votes have been counted, a closer look at the performance of the polls reveals that – although on average they did somewhat underestimate Trump – the error was less than in 2020. The problem for the polls at this election was that even the smallest error in one direction or the other from the anticipated very tight contest was almost bound to create the impression they had got it “wrong”.

Consider, first of all, the national popular vote. On this the various websites that aggregate the results of countless election polls into a summary average were not entirely in agreement. Most, including Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin, reckoned Harris was ahead by a point or so. Some, however, including Real Clear Politics, suggested we were heading for a near tie (they had Harris just 0.1 point ahead). The websites that calculate a poll average vary in which polls they include and whether and how they weight them, thereby creating some potential for disagreement about exactly what the polls were saying.

In any event, it now looks as though Trump was only just over two points ahead in the popular vote. His lead has gradually been falling over the past week as more ballots have been counted and, rather than a decisive success for Trump, it looks as though he secured a narrow win in a close contest. In contrast to his first electoral success in 2016, however, he did succeed in winning the popular vote this time around.

So, even if we take the view that the polls were pointing to a one point lead for Harris, the average error in the polls’ estimate of the gap between the two candidates was three points. That compares with a four-point error in 2020 – and is less than half the near seven-point error in the polls’ average overestimation of Labour’s lead over the Conservatives in the UK election earlier this year.

2024 presidential election interactive map
Source: 270 to win

Meanwhile, we should remember there were several polls that did suggest Trump was narrowly ahead. Of the 17 polls that were included in Real Clear Politics’ final calculation, five had Trump ahead, while five anticipated a tie. Only seven actually had Harris ahead. And not included in those numbers were some notably accurate polls by two companies primarily based in the UK, that is, JL Partners (which anticipated a three-point lead) and Redfield & Wilton (which had Trump two points ahead). This was not an election where every polling company got it wrong.

Swing states

But what of those polls in the swing states where Trump swept the board? This surely painted an inaccurate picture? In fact, if anything, these polls were even better than those of the national popular vote.

In two states, Georgia and North Carolina, the polls suggested on average that Trump was one point ahead. In the event, he won by two points in Georgia, and three in North Carolina, errors of just one and two points respectively. The position is similar in the three “blue wall” states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania on which Kamala Harris’ hope of victory primarily rested. In the two midwest states the polls had Harris just one point ahead when it was actually Trump who had enjoyed a one-point lead. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania the two candidates were tied in the polls when eventually Trump won by two points. In short, in each case the error on the lead was no more than two points.

Only in Nevada and Arizona was there a slightly bigger gap between the polls and the eventual result. In Nevada the polls pointed to a tie, but Trump won by three points. In Arizona the polling averages gave Trump a lead of a little above two points, while at present with nearly all the votes counted he has a lead of just under six points – indicating an error approaching four points. Across all seven swing states the average error in the polls was just over two points. This is well below the average error of five in polls of individual states in 2020.

In short, this was no landslide victory for Trump in the swing states. In six of the seven the Republican’s winning margin was no more than three points. This meant, as the pollsters themselves acknowledged could well happen, that rather than the swing states being evenly divided between Trump and Harris, leaving the outcome potentially on a knife-edge for days, just a small error in the polls could see either candidate sweep them all. That in the event was precisely what happened.

Clearly, nobody involved in polling can afford to be complacent about the industry’s performance in this year’s presidential battle. There will be concern that for the third time in a row they have typically – though not universally – underestimated support for Trump. The trouble is, in a close election – and the polls were entirely correct in anticipating that this was going to be a close election – only the smallest of errors can create the impression that the polls have got it wrong.

The truth is that the polls are often at least a little bit out – and we should adjust our expectations of them accordingly. More

Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on January 20 2025. At that point he will become the first US president since Grover Cleveland – 130 years ago – to serve two non-consecutive terms, having lost the White House only to regain it four years later. In securing four more years in the Oval Office, Trump now has the opportunity to not just be a controversial figure, but to become a historically consequential president as well.

The eminent historian, H.W. Brands, argues that there have only been three great US presidents: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), an opinion with which scholarly opinion polls typically agree.

All three presidents had something in common: dealing with epochal issues and crises. Washington had to win the war of independence and ensure that the United States was established and on a firm footing at home and abroad. Lincoln had to win the civil war and address the nation’s original sin of slavery. FDR was faced with saving the capitalist system following the Great Depression and had to defeat fascism in the second world war.

Therefore, for most presidents, the goal is to be in a second tier of rankings among popular and scholastic memory. These are presidents who changed the direction of the country by influencing its political discourse and public policy. To do this, a president must win two terms of office.

Previous presidents, such as Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, can certainly lay claim to being considered to be consequential political leaders on these terms. Reagan reversed decades of economic and political consensus by declaring, in his first inaugural speech, that: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

As impactful as the policies of Reaganism may have been, it was his rhetoric that actually set the US political agenda for nearly 40 years.

Obama’s signature domestic reform, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may once again be under threat of Republican repeal, and this time his old adversary John McCain is not here to save it. Obama’s promise and belief in the optimism of American progress was probably more his real legacy, but was perhaps simply masking the partisanship and divisions under the surface.

Trump 2.0

The response to Trump’s political comeback is as divisive as the man himself. His proponents welcome a political realignment to the extent that the Republican party is now the voice of blue-collar Americans in opposition to the elitism of the Democratic party.

Trump’s opponents say he will position the US on the side of authoritarians and drag the country – and the wider world – into economic turmoil if he follows through with his threat about tariffs. And the idea of a convicted felon limiting employment opportunities for his fellow Americans may also be questioned following his reelection to the highest of political offices, let alone concerns about the future of American democracy.

But there’s no arguing against the proposition that, having won a second term which means he will have utterly dominated US politics for a decade or more, that Trump is a consequential president. He has made the Republican party into the party of Trumpism. And by choosing J.D. Vance as his vice-president, he has potentially settled the question of a legacy for the Maga movement with the potential to carry on into another generation.

Unpredictable: Donald Trump’s foreign policy sometimes keeps even his allies guessing.
EPA-EFE/Anatoly Maltsev

On the international stage – and as a political disruptor – Trump will be a source of uncertainty for governments from Europe to Asia. There are those that argue his is an effective foreign policy approach. His supporters make a great deal of the fact that there were no major wars during his first administration like the ones that now imperil the world today. And to be sure, his inconsistency and the uncertainty that this brings, could be viewed as the embodiment of the “madman theory” which holds that an unpredictable leader is an effective deterrent in the era of nuclear arsenals.

But this will be little comfort for Ukraine, which may no longer be able to count on US support, or for the Nato alliance, for similar reasons.

Challenge for the Democrats

Everywhere from the corridors of power to social media sites will be speculating about the 2028 presidential race. It is here that we will see the real consequence of Trump’s election.

The Republicans will be searching for the candidate best placed to maintain Trump’s coalition. Indeed, “broad coalition” does now seem to be a fair description of the Maga movement. Democrats can no longer point to incredibly marginal Republican victories in swing states as they did in 2016. Indeed, they can no longer say that Trump has not been chosen by the majority of American voters. After being beaten in the popular vote by both Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, he took the popular vote in 2024 by nearly 5 million votes over Kamala Harris.

Trump increased support for the Republicans in safe blue states such as New York. He has gained support across different demographics, including Hispanics and African-Americans

The challenge now is for the Democrats to change. They need to once again learn the language and address the issues that matter most to the American heartlands. Bill Clinton and his “New Democrats” were the consequence of the Reagan revolution, even declaring that the era of “big goverment” was over as he looked ahead to his own reelection in 1996. Obama was a generational political talent in coalition building, albeit bookended by Republican presidents able to reach beyond their traditional support, particularly with minority voters.

Trump has changed the game in US politics. He may be a highly divisive character who has both provoked and capitalised on the emotions of a deeply divided country. But it’s impossible to argue against the proposition that, in the broad sweep of US political history, the man who has become America’s 45th and 47th president won’t be remembered as a figure of major consequence. More

A key figure in Donald Trump’s election campaign and a likely figure in his incoming administration is Robert F. Kennedy Jr, or RFK Jr for short. After abandoning his own tilt at president, the prominent anti-vaxxer endorsed and campaigned for Trump, helping propel him to victory.

Kennedy promoted the banner “Make America Healthy Again” during the campaign. Now Trump has made clear Kennedy will play a significant role in health.

He has been promised a “big role” in guiding health policy, and Trump has said he would enable Kennedy to “go wild” on health, food and medicines.

So, who is Kennedy and what could his vision of a healthy America mean for public health in the US and globally?

Who is RFK Jr?

RFK Jr was born into a famous American political dynasty. He is the son of Robert F. Kennedy, who served as US attorney general under his brother John F. Kennedy, who was president. Robert F. Kennedy was then a senator before he was assassinated during his own run for the presidency in 1968.

His son, RFK Jr, was a prominent and effective environmental lawyer and activist, helping to pursue litigation against corporations, including Montsanto and DuPont.

For the past 20 years, however, he has been better known for his embrace of various conspiracy theories and as a key source of vaccine misinformation spreading on social media.

Kennedy has recently said he is “not going to take anyone’s vaccines away”. However, he continues to make false claims about COVID vaccines, and to promote false facts about vaccines and autism when there is scientific consensus there is no causal link.

What role will he have?

Although Trump has publicly committed to Kennedy having a major role, it is unclear what that will be.

Based on a video obtained by Politico, Kennedy said he was promised control of federal public health agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and its sub-agencies, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health.

Such broad authority would be unprecedented. Appointments to major agencies and cabinet positions in the US government require approval by Congress. Kennedy’s lack of experience in health care or public health, and his absence of scientific training and credentials, will make such an approval uncertain. His unscientific allegations would resurface and there would be an almost certain media circus.

Even if Kennedy was in a position of authority, many changes to these federal agencies would require Congressional oversight. For instance, any changes to how drugs are approved would be challenging to implement in the short term.

This is not to underestimate the damage Kennedy could do. In the past, Trump circumvented Congressional approval for various posts by appointing “acting officials”. So even without any official post, Kennedy’s potential influence in the Trump administration is alarming.

More misinformation

It is no surprise Trump has embraced Kennedy as the “health czar” of his second presidency. They have both spread COVID misinformation and promoted unproven treatments, particularly early in the pandemic. These include promoting hydrocholoroquine (when there is strong evidence of its toxic effects to the heart).

Kennedy leverages the language of science to give a veneer of credibility. He promises to return health agencies “to their rich tradition of gold-standard, evidence-based science” and to “clean up” agencies he accuses of being corrupt. He may well roll back regulatory controls that protect the health of Americans from unproven treatments.

If Kennedy is to be the health czar of the Trump presidency, his platform to recruit Americans to his anti-science agenda would be considerably enhanced. The result? The very real threat of worsening the public’s health.

Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infections, such as measles, will rise.

Many Americans also grew up with fluoridated water and have not witnessed the impacts of widespread dental caries (tooth decay). So, Kennedy may be well placed to convince enough of the American people that fluoridated water is dangerous, and that fluoride should be an individual’s choice.

Governments and public health officials may face an uphill battle to maintain fluoride in the community water supply, rolling back one of the greatest public health achievements of the past century.

If Kennedy’s anti-science claims gain traction, his legacy will be the opposite of the banner “Make America Healthy Again”. The health of the American population will deteriorate with far-reaching impacts for decades to come.

There are global implications, too

The potential harms of elevating someone like Kennedy to positions of authority and influence will not just affect Americans.

For instance, after Kennedy and his anti-vaccine organisation visited Samoa in 2019, the deaths of two children were falsely attributed to the measles vaccination. Vaccination rates in Samoa plummeted to 31% (half the previous rate) and a subsequent measles outbreak killed 83 people.

Kennedy questioned if the deaths were related to a “defective vaccine” and denied he had any hand in spreading misinformation.

One of the outstanding achievements of the previous Trump presidency was Operation Warp Speed, which enabled the development, testing and mass production of COVID vaccines at unprecedented speed, saving many millions of lives around the world.

Should another pandemic occur over the next four years, with Kennedy in the White House, the US is unlikely to provide similar leadership.

Kennedy has been deeply critical of COVID vaccine development, including in his best-selling 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci, about the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Kennedy said COVID vaccines were not sufficiently tested and continued to advocate for disproven COVID treatments, specifically hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

In a podcast earlier this year, Fauci recalled a presentation Kennedy gave him about vaccinations. For 40 minutes Kennedy “showed slide after slide after slide that […] made no sense at all”.

Later, Fauci spoke with Kennedy saying:

Bobby, I believe you care about children and you care that you don’t want to hurt them. But you got to realise that from a scientific standpoint, what you’re saying does make no sense.

Unfortunately, in the distorted reality of a Trump administration with Kennedy at his side, truth and science may no longer matter. And the health of the world will suffer. More