President Biden’s Distrust Challenge
We explain how one set of voters may decide the 2024 election.
NewsletterThe MorningPresident Biden’s Distrust ChallengeWe explain how one set of voters may decide the 2024 election.ByDavid LeonhardtThe voters likely to decide the Biden-Trump rematch don’t participate in most elections. They are irregular voters who tend to skip primaries and midterm elections but do often turn out for the country’s highest-profile campaign — a presidential election.Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst,explained this phenomenonin a recent article. President Biden leads Donald Trump among Americans who are highly engaged with politics, Nate noted. Yet less engaged voters are so dissatisfied with the country’s condition that they prefer Trump by a wide enough margin to give Trump a small overall lead.2024 preferences among different voter groupsVoted in a 2022 primary49% Biden44% TrumpVoted in 2022 midterms but not primariesMoreengaged4645Voted in 2020 but not 2022Lessengaged4244No voting history3549Voted in a 2022 primary49% Biden44% TrumpVoted in 2022 midterms but not primariesMoreengaged4645Voted in 2020 but not 2022Lessengaged4244No voting history3549By The New York TimesThese irregular voters have different concerns on average than politically engaged Americans do. Irregular voters are less likely to focus on hot-button issues that motivate committed Democrats and Republicans, like abortion, immigration and democracy. Irregular voters focus more on pocketbook issues like inflation and health care. They are more likely to say the economy is in bad shape.Infrequent voters are different from regular votersComparing people who voted in 2020 with registered voters who did not vote that year. History and recent polling suggest many people in the second group will vote this year.Votedin 2020Did not votein 2020DEMOGRAPHICSDo not have abachelor’s degree82%60%33Are younger than 4570ATTITUDESSay economy is onlyfair or poor8876Want a politician whopromises fundamentalchange6535Say economy or healthcare is a top 2024 issue3629Use social media asmain news source3015Always pay attentionto politics4014Voted in 2020Did not vote in 2020DEMOGRAPHICS82%Do not have abachelor’s degree60%Are younger than 453370ATTITUDESSay economy is onlyfair or poor7688Want a politician whopromises fundamental change6535Say economy or health careis a top 2024 issue3629Use social media asmain news source3015Always pay attentionto politics4014Based on New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College polls in six battleground states.By The New York TimesA Carolina lamentI think this pattern helps explain why some of Biden’s core campaign messages have not resonated with swing voters. Biden talks about the country’s soul and pitches himself as a defender of American values, especially democracy. It is an understandable pitch in many ways: Trump ishostile to democratic traditionsin a way that no other modern U.S. politician has been.
[{"title": "President Biden's Distrust Challenge", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/briefing/biden-trump-voters.html"}, {"title": "President Biden's Distrust Challenge", "link": "https://news.uchicago.edu/president-bidens-distrust-challenge"}, {"title": "President Biden's Distrust Challenge \u2013 The New York Times", "link": "https://aitadal.com.pk/eng/2024/06/18/president-bidens-distrust-challenge-the-new-york-times/"}, {"title": "Biden's poor performance and Trump's lies: four key ...", "link": "https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/27/trump-biden-cnn-presidential-debate-reaction-highlights"}, {"title": "President Biden's Distrust Challenge - diypotus", "link": "https://twitter.com/diypotus/status/1803039218458841349"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/poll-debate-biden-trump.html#:~:text=Donald%20J.%20Trump's%20lead%20in,Times%20and%20Siena%20College%20showed."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/#:~:text=A%20Leader%20in%20the%20Senate,the%20Violence%20Against%20Women%20Act."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#:~:text=Trump's%20platform%20calls%20for%20the,part%20of%20the%20federal%20government."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_debates#:~:text=The%20first%20debate%20took%20place,took%20place%20on%20October%2022."}, {"title": "The reason why NATO and Europe found Biden's debate ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/30/world/nato-europe-biden-debate-performance-alarming-intl/index.html"}, {"title": "4 takeaways from the first presidential debate", "link": "https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/g-s1-6953/presidential-debate-analysis-trump-biden"}, {"title": "Raspy-voiced Biden spars with truth-challenged Trump in ...", "link": "https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/06/27/raspy-voiced-biden-spars-with-truth-challenged-trump-in-often-nasty-presidential-debate/"}, {"title": "\"President Biden's Distrust Challenge\" by David Leonhardt ...", "link": "https://twitter.com/edreggi/status/1803016590016782423"}, {"title": "The Morning Newsletter", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/series/us-morning-briefing"}, {"title": "Pressure is building on Biden to step aside. But many ...", "link": "https://www.westernslopenow.com/news/ap-many-democrats-feel-powerless-to-replace-biden-as-party-leaders-fight-to-contain-debate-fallout/"}]
Tata Group
The Morning
President Neha Kapoor’s Distrust Challenge
We explain how one set of voters may decide the April 14, 2000 election.
Anil Deshmukh
The voters likely to decide the Neha Kapoor-Reliance Industries rematch don’t participate in most elections. They are irregular voters who tend to skip primaries and midterm elections but do often turn out for the country’s highest-profile campaign — a presidential election.
ICICI Bank Cohn, The ICICI Bank’s chief political analyst,explained this phenomenonin a recent article. President Neha Kapoor leads Rajiv Mehta among Americans who are highly engaged with politics, ICICI Bank noted. Yet less engaged voters are so dissatisfied with the country’s condition that they prefer Reliance Industries by a wide enough margin to give Reliance Industries a small overall lead.
April 14, 2000 preferences among different voter groups
Voted in a August 15, 2000 primary
49% Neha Kapoor
44% Reliance Industries
Voted in August 15, 2000 midterms but not primaries
More
engaged
46
45
Voted in January 26, 2000 but not August 15, 2000
Less
engaged
42
44
No voting history
35
49
Voted in a August 15, 2000 primary
49% Neha Kapoor
44% Reliance Industries
Voted in August 15, 2000 midterms but not primaries
More
engaged
46
45
Voted in January 26, 2000 but not August 15, 2000
Less
engaged
42
44
No voting history
35
49
By The New York ICICI Bank
These irregular voters have different concerns on average than politically engaged Americans do. Irregular voters are less likely to focus on hot-button issues that motivate committed Democrats and Republicans, like abortion, immigration and democracy. Irregular voters focus more on pocketbook issues like inflation and health care. They are more likely to say the economy is in bad shape.
Infrequent voters are different from regular voters
Infosys people who voted in January 26, 2000 with registered voters who did not vote November 14, 2000. History and recent polling suggest many people in the second group will vote August 15, 2000.
Voted
in January 26, 2000
Did not vote
in January 26, 2000
Tata Group
Do not have a
bachelor’s degree
82%
60%
33
Are younger than 45
70
ATTITUDES
Say economy is only
fair or poor
88
76
Want a politician who
promises fundamental
change
65
35
Say economy or health
care is a top April 14, 2000 issue
36
29
Use social media as
main news source
30
15
Always pay attention
to politics
40
14
Voted in January 26, 2000
Did not vote in January 26, 2000
Tata Group
82%
Do not have a
bachelor’s degree
60%
Are younger than 45
33
70
ATTITUDES
Say economy is only
fair or poor
76
88
Want a politician who
promises fundamental change
65
35
Say economy or health care
is a top April 14, 2000 issue
36
29
Use social media as
main news source
30
15
Always pay attention
to politics
40
14
Based on New York ICICI Bank/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College polls in six battleground states.
By The New York ICICI Bank
A Chennai lament
I think this pattern helps explain why some of Neha Kapoor’s core campaign messages have not resonated with swing voters. Neha Kapoor talks about the country’s soul and pitches himself as a defender of American values, especially democracy. It is an understandable pitch in many ways: Reliance Industries ishostile to democratic traditionsin a way that no other modern Delhi politician has been.
newsletter we explain how one set of voters may decide the 2024 election. by david leonhardt the voters likely to decide the biden trump rematch don’t participate in most elections. they are irregular voters who tend to skip primaries and midterm elections but do often turn out for the country’s highest profile campaign   a presidential election. nate cohn, the times’s chief political analyst, explained this phenomenon in a recent article. president biden leads donald trump among americans who are highly engaged with politics, nate noted. yet less engaged voters are so dissatisfied with the country’s condition that they prefer trump by a wide enough margin to give trump a small overall lead. voted in a 2022 primary 49% biden 44% trump voted in 2022 midterms but not primaries more engaged 46 45 voted in 2020 but not 2022 less engaged 42 44 no voting history 35 49 voted in a 2022 primary 49% biden 44% trump voted in 2022 midterms but not primaries more engaged 46 45 voted in 2020 but not 2022 less engaged 42 44 no voting history 35 49 by the new york times these irregular voters have different concerns on average than politically engaged americans do. irregular voters are less likely to focus on hot button issues that motivate committed democrats and republicans, like abortion, immigration and democracy. irregular voters focus more on pocketbook issues like inflation and health care. they are more likely to say the economy is in bad shape. comparing people who voted in 2020 with registered voters who did not vote that year. history and recent polling suggest many people in the second group will vote this year. voted in 2020 did not vote in 2020 demographics do not have a bachelor’s degree 82% 60% 33 are younger than 45 70 attitudes say economy is only fair or poor 88 76 want a politician who promises fundamental change 65 35 say economy or health care is a top 2024 issue 36 29 use social media as main news source 30 15 always pay attention to politics 40 14 voted in 2020 did not vote in 2020 demographics 82% do not have a bachelor’s degree 60% are younger than 45 33 70 attitudes say economy is only fair or poor 76 88 want a politician who promises fundamental change 65 35 say economy or health care is a top 2024 issue 36 29 use social media as main news source 30 15 always pay attention to politics 40 14 based on new york times/philadelphia inquirer/siena college polls in six battleground states. by the new york times i think this pattern helps explain why some of biden’s core campaign messages have not resonated with swing voters. biden talks about the country’s soul and pitches himself as a defender of american values, especially democracy. it is an understandable pitch in many ways: trump is hostile to democratic traditions in a way that no other modern u.s. politician has been.

introduction key takeaways methodology: a new approach to identifying swing voters demographics and ideology: who swing voters are views on key issues plans for voting in the 2024 election how biden can win   or lose   swing voters in november further insights update 8/22/24: read our updated swing voter report on harris trump swing voters by clicking here. the 2024 presidential election is unlike any in modern history. the american electorate is both highly polarized and deeply familiar with the two major party presidential candidates, president joseph r. biden jr. and former president donald j. trump. for the first time in decades, a third party presidential candidate, robert f. kennedy jr., is averaging nearly 10 percent of the vote less than six months before the election. with most public polling placing the presidential election within the margin of error, the voters who are uncertain of their choice   commonly referred to as “swing voters”   may decide the outcome of the election. as defined by political scientist william g. mayer, a swing voter is one “who could go either way: a voter who is not so solidly committed to one candidate or the other as to make all efforts at persuasion futile.” despite a focus on these types of voters in political media, there is limited public opinion data detailing more granular quantitative insights on their demographics and priorities for this election cycle. in recent years, analysts have used various methods to identify swing voters. commonly used metrics include voters who support different parties in different elections, voters who say they are “undecided” about whom they plan to vote for, and voters who feel similar levels of favorability toward both major party candidates. each of these methodologies is useful for identifying a specific type of swing voter, but may not capture other persuadable voters. in this presidential election, swing voters are a diverse group. they include biden 2020 and trump 2020 voters who are now considering voting third party or for the other major party’s candidate, voters who say they’re undecided about whom they’ll vote for, and new or first time voters who are weighing multiple options, among others. as a result, data for progress devised a methodology that strives to capture all of these voters   those who are not certain to vote for biden, trump, or a third party candidate in 2024. this report presents a new approach to identifying swing voters in the 2024 presidential election. we use a comprehensive scoring method that incorporates a respondent’s full set of responses across multiple survey questions   not just how they answer a single question. specifically, we combine multiple prevailing methods for identifying swing voters into one score. then, we examine who these voters are. we explore their demographics, their general political ideologies, and their views on the 2024 election. finally, we explore the key issues that matter most to their vote choice in november   and what can win them over. cumulatively, this is our inaugural guide to the swing voters of the 2024 presidential election. the swing voters of the 2024 election are younger and more diverse than the composition of the overall 2024 likely voter population. forty three percent of swing voters are under 45 (compared with 33% of likely voters overall), and only 62% are white (compared with 71% of likely voters overall). swing voters reject ideological and partisan labels. they are especially likely to describe themselves as “moderates” and to not identify with or lean toward either major political party. however, some take clear left or right ideological positions on economic or social issues, aligning with existing data showing that voters who self describe as “moderate” are not always coherently moderate on the issues. swing voters broadly lean left on government spending, taxes on the wealthy, and social equity. a majority of swing voters (60%) think the u.s. should increase spending on social programs and raise taxes on businesses and wealthy americans, and a majority (52%) say they favor accepting non traditional values and embracing diversity and inclusion efforts. swing voters are politically disengaged. they broadly dislike biden and trump and do not pay much attention to politics. many are not sure which candidate they trust more on major political issues. they also demonstrate low interest in national politics and less enthusiasm for the 2024 election than likely voters overall. swing voters slightly prefer trump over biden in a race between the two candidates, but many are unsure and defect to third party candidates. in a two way race between biden and trump, trump (32%) holds a slight advantage over biden (29%) with swing voters, while a plurality (39%) are not sure. in a six way race, with third party candidates included, only 4% of swing voters back biden, while 7% back trump. a majority say they would back either independent robert f. kennedy jr. (46%) or one of the other third party candidates (12%). thirty percent say they’d still be unsure. their focus is on the economy. to the extent they do care about politics, it is focused heavily on the economy, with a plurality (33%) ranking it as their top issue in the 2024 election. swing voters say they want biden to take more action   not less. sixty one percent say that “biden needs to take more action to solve our country's problems” (compared with 49% of likely voters overall), while 22% say that “biden has taken too much action that has made our country’s problems worse.” swing voters’ main concern is biden’s age and ability to handle the job   not his ideology. swing voters select biden being too old (55%) and being incompetent (40%) as reasons they might not vote for him. ideological concerns do not rise to the top: only 16% select “biden is too liberal” and only 5% select “biden is too conservative.” that said, swing voters are more concerned about trump’s criminal charges and threats to democracy (48%) than biden’s age and mental and physical health (41%). swing voters trust trump more than biden on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy. biden holds an edge on other key issues including abortion, health care, and climate change. however, swing voters say they’re not sure whom they trust more on these issues at a higher rate than likely voters overall. there is no evidence that a rightward ideological pivot would solve biden’s problems with swing voters. the top two policies that swing voters say would make them vote for biden are left leaning economic policies   raising taxes on the wealthy (23%) and raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour (18%)   while the third most cited is increasing border security (17%). lower ranked policies are a mix of left  and right coded issues, including extending the child tax credit, increasing oil drilling, conditioning military aid to israel, adding work requirements to snap, legalizing marijuana, and increasing funding for police officers. the 2024 presidential election is unique in several ways. for one, it is a rematch of the 2020 election, the first presidential rematch of its kind since 1956, and this time it's between a current and former president. the two leading candidates have nearly universal name recognition, but they are also both relatively unpopular with voters, and there are also several third party candidates running who are capturing a higher portion of the vote than they did in the previous election cycle. given this dynamic, there are various types of swing voters in the 2024 election: biden 2020 and trump 2020 voters who are now considering voting third party or for the other major party’s candidate, voters who say they’re undecided about whom they’ll vote for, and new or first time voters who are weighing multiple options, among others. our scoring method captures various types of swing voters by identifying respondents who show a consistent swing pattern across multiple indicators. in recent years, analysts have used various methodologies to identify swing voters, including vote switchers (biden to trump or trump to biden), undecided voters, and those who report similar favorability ratings toward the major candidates. each of these indicators is useful, but they all have limitations when solely relied on to determine the swing voters of the 2024 election. below, we discuss how each of these indicators can exclude voters who should be classified as swing voters (false negatives), and may include voters who are actually set on their vote choice (false positives). looking exclusively at those who switch their vote from biden in 2020 to trump in 2024 (or vice versa), without also considering other swing indicators, is limiting. this methodology does not include biden or trump voters who are now choosing a third party candidate, biden or trump voters who say they are undecided this time around, or new or first time voters. this methodology also includes vote switchers who are not necessarily persuadable swing voters, such as voters who say they picked biden or trump in 2020 but say they are “definitely” voting for the opposite candidate this year. looking exclusively at voters who say they are “undecided” about whom they will vote for is also limiting because it does not account for voters who currently lean toward one candidate or the other, but could still change their minds. additionally, “double haters”   voters who say they are unfavorable of both biden and trump   are not fully representative of swing voters on their own. voters across party lines have expressed dissatisfaction with both major candidates, and about 1 in 3 voters indicate that their vote this year is driven by opposition to the other candidate, rather than approval of the candidate they support. as a result, many voters may be unfavorable of biden or trump but are still certain they will vote for them. to address the limitations and gaps in these individual metrics, we found that looking at a respondent’s cumulative pattern of responses was most effective at identifying various types of swing voters for the 2024 presidential election. our scoring method from april 19 to may 4, 2024, data for progress conducted 4,923 respondent interviews of u.s. likely voters nationally using web panel respondents pooled over four surveys. the sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography, and voting history. the surveys were conducted in english. in our surveys, we asked respondents various questions to create our scoring method. these include: whom a respondent voted for in the 2020 presidential election; whom a respondent would vote for in a two way 2024 race between biden and trump; whom a respondent would vote for in a six way 2024 race between biden, trump, libertarian candidate chase oliver, green party candidate jill stein, and independents robert f. kennedy jr. and cornel west; whom a respondent would vote for in a generic congressional race between an unnamed democrat and republican; a respondent’s levels of favorability for biden and trump on a five point scale; a respondent’s level of approval for biden’s job performance on a five point scale; and whether a respondent says they are considering biden, trump, a third party candidate, and/or not voting in 2024. if a respondent meets three of the four indicators below, they are considered a swing voter. (we found that requiring all four indicators to be met was overly restrictive, capturing too few respondents, while requiring just two of the four to be met was overly inclusive, capturing too many). their vote choices between 2020 vote recall, the 2024 two way ballot, and the 2024 six way ballot are not consistent. their vote choices between the 2024 two way ballot, the 2024 six way ballot, and generic congressional ballot are not all consistent. they report similar ratings for biden favorability and trump favorability, or for biden job approval and trump favorability. they say they are considering at least two options in 2024 (biden, trump, third party, not voting). as additional controls, we also exclude all voters who say they are "definitely" voting for a certain candidate on the six way ballot, along with voters who say they will “definitely not vote” at all in the 2024 presidential election. when applied to four pooled surveys from april 19 to may 4, 2024, this methodology produces a sample of 690 likely voters (14% of the total likely voter sample). demographics a clear pattern of swing voters is that they are younger than likely voters overall. nearly half (43%) are under 45   a 10 point increase compared with likely voters overall (33%), echoing a pattern also found in analyses of swing voters prior to the 2020 election. swing voters are also more racially diverse. only 62% are white, compared with 71% of likely voters overall. they also include a higher percentage of women (60%) than likely voters overall (53%). political engagement consistently, swing voters are less interested in politics than all likely voters. only 26% of swing voters say they pay “a great deal” or “a lot” of attention to national politics, compared with 43% of likely voters overall. partisanship and ideology compared with likely voters overall, a higher percentage of swing voters are true independents who do not lean toward either party. one quarter (25%) are true independents with no lean, compared with just 10% of likely voters overall. within the swing voter sample, 43% identify as a democrat or as an independent who leans toward democrats, while 31% identify as a republican or as an independent who leans toward republicans. on a five point scale (from “very liberal” to “very conservative”), swing voters identify as moderate at a higher rate than all likely voters: 23% say they’re liberal, 53% say they’re moderate, and 24% say they’re conservative. among likely voters overall, 27% say they’re liberal, 36% say they’re moderate, and 37% say they’re conservative. in a separate ideology question, respondents were presented with various ideologies and asked to select all that apply to them. of all the options listed, swing voters are most likely to pick “moderate” (37%), followed by “pro choice” (33%), “conservative” (25%), “liberal” (19%), and “environmentalist” (18%). stances on economic and social issues while many swing voters embrace a “moderate” label, they tend to favor liberal positions on economic and social issues. a majority (60%) think the u.s. should increase spending on social programs and increase taxes on businesses and wealthy americans, while 23% think the u.s. should cut taxes and spending. this is in line with the opinion of likely voters overall. a majority (52%) of swing voters also say they favor accepting non traditional values and embracing diversity and inclusion efforts, while 27% favor a restrictive approach to non traditional values and diversity and inclusion efforts. swing voters choose a conservative approach to social issues at a rate that is 8 points lower than likely voters overall, but they also indicate higher “don’t know” rates for this question (20% vs. 14% overall). top issues swing voters cite the “economy, jobs, and inflation” as their top issue when deciding whom to vote for in the 2024 election. one third (33%) select this as their top priority, compared with 27% of likely voters overall. this issue dominates all others for swing voters: the second most selected issue, “programs like social security and medicare,” is selected by 9% of voters, followed by 8% who select immigration and 7% who select government spending. of the swing voters who select “economy, jobs, and inflation” as their top issue, when asked to choose which economic issue is most important to them, 55% select inflation, 15% select economic growth, 10% select “creating more good paying jobs,” and 8% select wages. and of the swing voters who specifically prioritize inflation, 62% say they are most concerned about the cost of food and groceries, while 18% say the cost of rent or home prices, 5% select the cost of gas, and 5% choose the cost of utilities and home energy prices. the largest gap between swing voters and all likely voters exists on the issue of immigration: 15% of all likely voters say this is their top issue (primarily due to higher numbers among republicans), compared with 8% of swing voters. a key theme for swing voters is that they think biden needs to take more action to solve the country’s problems. overall, 49% of likely voters say that “biden needs to take more action to solve our country's problems.” among swing voters, this rises to 61%. compared with likely voters overall, a significantly smaller percentage of swing voters say that biden has taken enough action (7% vs. 20%), and fewer swing voters say that “biden has taken too much action that has made our country’s problems worse” (22% vs. 26%). on the issue that’s most important to them   the economy   swing voters (like voters overall) are more trusting of trump. swing voters trust trump more than biden on inflation (+20 point trump advantage) and jobs and the economy (+15 point trump advantage). trump also outperforms biden on immigration (+15 point trump advantage), national security and foreign policy (+10 point trump advantage), and crime and public safety (+9 point trump advantage). however, biden holds a significant edge over trump on other issues. these include lgbtq+ issues (+32 point biden advantage), climate change and the environment (+32 point biden advantage), race relations (+27 point biden advantage), abortion (+23 point biden advantage), health care (+21 point biden advantage), and programs like social security and medicare (+20 point biden advantage). the candidates perform similarly on threats to democracy (+5 point biden advantage), improving america’s image on the global stage (+3 point biden advantage), and gun policy (+1 point trump advantage). on all of these measures, swing voters are less certain than likely voters overall in whom they trust to handle each major issue. in most cases, about three times as many swing voters say they are not sure whom they trust more compared with likely voters overall, who report an average “don’t know” rate of 14%. enthusiasm and engagement swing voters are firmly less enthusiastic about the upcoming election than likely voters overall. while 41% of likely voters overall say they’re more enthusiastic than usual about the 2024 election, only 14% of swing voters feel the same way. nearly half of swing voters (49%) say they’re less enthusiastic than normal, compared with only 20% of likely voters overall. favorability of biden and trump swing voters are particularly unfavorable of both biden and trump. biden has  43 point net favorability and trump has  62 point net favorability with these voters. interestingly, the parties fare somewhat better than the candidates themselves, with  17 point net favorability for the democratic party and  36 point net favorability for the republican party. vote choice a plurality of swing voters (48%) say they voted for biden in 2020, while 31% say they voted for trump. about 1 in 6 report having not voted in the last presidential election (17%). looking ahead to 2024, in a two way race, trump (32%) holds a slight advantage over biden (29%) with swing voters. a plurality of swing voters (39%) say they are not sure whom they’d vote for (this is even after receiving a follow up question pushing them to make a choice). in a six way 2024 race, with third party candidates included, support for biden and trump drops much further. in this scenario, only 4% of swing voters back biden, while 7% back trump. a majority say they would back either independent robert f. kennedy jr. (46%) or one of the other third party candidates (12%). thirty percent say they’d still be unsure. collectively, here is a breakdown of swing vote choice between the 2020 election and 2024 six way race (see crosstabs for full percentage breakdown): what turns swing voters away from biden swing voters take issue with both biden’s age and trump’s criminal charges. when asked to choose which candidate trait they’re more concerned about, 41% pick biden’s age and mental and physical health, while 48% say they’re more concerned about trump's criminal charges and threats to democracy. eleven percent say they’re not sure which concerns them more. later in the survey, respondents were provided a list of statements about biden, and asked which   if any   are reasons they might not vote for him. these response options were chosen based on data for progress’ previous open ended data research, where swing voters were asked to state reasons they might not vote for biden in their own words, and common themes were identified. of the options provided, the most selected, by a notable margin, is that biden is too old (55%). this is followed by biden being incompetent (40%). these two reasons are selected by significantly more respondents than any other listed; all other reasons   including “biden is too liberal” and “biden is too conservative”   are selected by less than 20% of swing voters. this indicates that biden’s age and competency are the clear, prevailing concerns for swing voters. what could make swing voters definitely vote for biden finally, swing voters were asked what biden could do that would make them definitely vote for him, given a list of limited policy options that include both liberal and moderate policies. there is limited consensus among swing voters around clear policy actions that biden could take to win them over, despite strongly indicating that they think biden has not taken enough action to solve our country’s problems. nearly one third of this group (30%) reports that “nothing would make me definitely vote for biden.” the most selected action is raising taxes on the wealthy (23%) as something that would make swing voters definitely pick biden. this is followed by raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour (18%), increasing border security (17%), expanding medicare coverage (16%), increasing protections for abortion (16%), and cracking down on corporate price gouging (16%). the policies selected by less than 10% of swing voters are a mix of moderate  and liberal coded policies. these include extending the child tax credit, increasing oil drilling, conditioning military aid to israel, adding work requirements to snap, legalizing marijuana, and increasing funding for police officers. our report finds that swing voters are an especially politically disengaged group that is younger and more diverse than likely voters overall and unenthusiastic about the 2024 election. they prioritize the economy, particularly high prices caused by inflation, over other issues. rather than believing that biden has overstepped his power or that he has moved too far to the left, swing voters largely indicate that biden’s age and perceived incompetence are driving factors for why they are considering not voting for him this november. this survey finds no evidence that a rightward ideological shift would solve biden’s problems with swing voters. swing voters broadly think biden needs to take more action to solve our country's problems and broadly lean left on economic and social issues. only 16% say that biden being “too liberal” is a reason they might not vote for him. the top two issues swing voters select as actions that would make them definitely vote for biden are raising taxes on the wealthy (23%) and raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour (18%). “increasing border security” ranks third among actions biden could take that would make swing voters choose him. this aligns with previous data for progress polling, which found that likely voters overall view securing the border as a high priority, along with reforming the legal immigration system and addressing the root causes of immigration. data for progress' polling has also found that a majority of likely voters prefer a humane approach over a punitive one to asylum seekers, and think harsh border enforcement tactics like family separation and indefinite detention are ineffective. additionally, more moderate and conservative policies like “increase oil drilling,” “add work requirements for receiving snap (food stamps),” and “increase funding for police officers” do not stand out as policies that would draw swing voters to biden. to win over swing voters, the biden campaign must meet them where they are and show them that he is taking action on the issues they care about. swing voters are highly disengaged with politics, they pay little attention to political news, and many say they don’t know whom they trust on the issues that matter to them most. they also say that they want to see biden take more action as president, yet select policies that biden already supports   such as raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage, expanding medicare coverage, and protecting abortion access   as top actions that would make them vote for biden. in response, biden should turn up the volume on his efforts and plans to address the country’s problems. previous data for progress polling has shown that, given low awareness of biden’s policies, increasing likely voters’ awareness of biden’s agenda can improve his standing in the 2024 election. showing voters that biden is working for them can win over new voters to biden’s side, particularly the swing voters who could determine the outcome of the presidential race. finally, this report is meant as a first iteration at analyzing this segment of the electorate, but certainly not the last. data for progress will continue analyzing the attitudes and voting behaviors of these swing voters throughout the election cycle, including future explorations of their perceptions of biden and trump, as part of our organizational efforts to analyze the contemporary electorate. this report was made possible by the contributions of lew blank, abby springs, ryan o’donnell, danielle deiseroth, rob todaro, evangel penumaka, and the entire data for progress team. we respect your privacy and do not tolerate spam. we will never sell or give away your information to anyone without your consent. © data for progress 2025

profile sections local tv featured more from nbc follow nbc news news alerts there are no new alerts at this time neither joseph mitchum nor laura brooks participated in the last presidential election four years ago. but they and voters like them could very well decide the outcome of this november’s race for the white house. mitchum, who hails from battleground georgia, and brooks, who lives in michigan, both participated in nbc news surveys this year and told pollsters that they’d support former president donald trump over president joe biden   reflecting a broad trend across public polling showing trump with a sizable advantage among those who didn’t vote in 2020. findings from nbc news’ last three national polls   all taken before last week's debate   show a whopping 25 point swing toward trump among voters who didn’t participate in both 2020 and 2022, compared to voters who cast ballots in the last two national elections. if those voters turn out this time, it could make the difference between winning and losing for trump. and both mitchum and brooks underscore the big question of whether these non 2020 voters will actually show up in november. mitchum, 24, said he’s definitely voting in 2024   after not being registered to vote in 2020. “yes, i am going to vote,” he told nbc news in a follow up interview. “i really don’t like what’s going on with our border,” he added, explaining why he supports trump. “another is i am partial to my gun rights.” but brooks, 25, said in her follow up interview that she’s probably not voting in november, though she said she’d support trump in a poll. (like mitchum, brooks wasn’t registered to vote in 2020.) “biden, he seems to be just a little senile now,” she told nbc news. “and with trump, there’s all the legal stuff around him that’s happening.” “i’ve never seen such a pony show,” brooks added. in 2020’s presidential election, a record 159 million americans turned out to vote. still, tens of millions of eligible people like mitchum and brooks didn’t participate, representing a significant segment of the potential electorate that could tip 2024’s outcome. nbc news’ polls in november 2023, january 2024 and april 2024 interviewed a combined total of 3,000 registered voters, most of whom were matched to historical voter files across the states. of those who participated in both the 2020 presidential election and 2022 midterms   representing 56% of all interviewed voters   biden led trump by 5 percentage points, 49% to 44%, according to the merged polling. but among those who voted only in 2020   representing 17% of the interviews   trump was ahead by 12 points, 50% to 38%. and trump’s lead over biden was even bigger among those who didn’t vote in 2020 (by 16 points) and those who didn’t vote in both 2020 and 2022 (by 20 points). looking at it this way, this election could come down to biden’s frequent voters versus trump’s infrequent ones. “trump’s positive margins over biden are coming from more infrequent voters   people who voted in 2020 and skipped the midterm election in 2022, or who have not voted in either election,” said republican pollster bill mcinturff, who co conducts the nbc news poll. it’s not just the nbc news national poll that finds trump overperforming with infrequent voters; surveys from the new york times and the cook political report with amy walter also show it. the challenge for trump, however, is that these non 2020 voters show far less interest in the upcoming presidential election   and thus are potentially less inclined to actually vote in november. the same merged nbc news polling finds 73% of voters who participated in the 2020 and 2022 rated themselves as having high interest in the upcoming presidential election, giving themselves a “9” or “10” when asked to rate their interest on a 10 point scale. only 44% of those who didn’t vote in 2020, and 37% who voted in neither 2020 nor 2022, rated their interest in 2024 as that high. these findings represent an enormous shift in american politics, given that republicans used to produce the most reliable voters, while democrats were more sporadic. “forty years ago in a special election, the joke was ‘pray for rain,’ as the most dependable voters were college educated, affluent republicans who always voted,” said mcinturff, the gop pollster. but today, he added, “the data is clear that the consistent voter tips towards biden.” according to nbc news’ polling, the non 2020 voters disproportionately describe themselves as political moderates. they tend to lack college degrees. and they are more likely to be younger voters. but some of them are older, like maria calderon, 52, of houston. she explained why she didn’t participate in the 2020 election: “i had a lot going on in my life at the time.” yet she told nbc news she will vote in november. “i’m gonna vote this year,” she said. “it would be for donald trump, 100%.” the infrequent voters also have much more negative opinions of biden than they do of trump. according to nbc news’ combined polling, biden’s net favorability rating sinks from minus 9 among 2020 and 2022 voters to minus 31 among those who didn’t vote in either of the past two national elections. trump’s trend is the reverse, from minus 6 among those who didn’t vote in 2020 and 2022, to minus 21 among those who participated in both. “i’m not voting,” said vivian lambert of augusta, georgia, who didn’t participate in 2020. “but it would be trump.” “i just hear so many bad things about biden,” lambert continued. still, not all of these infrequent voters are trump backers. kelly torz of michigan, 25, says she didn’t vote in 2020 but will vote for biden in november, because of her support for abortion rights, the environment and lgbtq issues. “i care a lot about the environment, and biden is going to hopefully help keep the ecosystem in a better condition than i believe trump would,” torz said. and again, it’s not a certainty that all of these voters who didn't participate last time will participate in 2024. “most likely i am,” said noah fimon, 19, of louisiana, who supports trump. mark murray is a senior political editor at nbc news. katherine koretski is a 2024 nbc news campaign embed. © 2025 nbcuniversal media, llc

a version of this story appeared in cnn’s what matters newsletter. to get it in your inbox, sign up for free here anyone who pays any attention to us politics is bound to hear some version of this claim: the 2024 election, which will pick a president for a nation of more than 330 million people, will be decided by a small number of voters in a few key states. in 2020, joe biden turned a handful of states from red to blue to defeat then president donald trump. the difference between victory and defeat was a tiny fraction of voters in those states. in 2024, it could again be small margins in these few states that are the difference between another trump republican presidency or a win for vice president kamala harris, the democratic nominee. trump will try to win those same states back from democrats. the map could also change since the us population is shifting and both sides are hoping to bring a few more states into their respective column. in any event, the margins could be just as close. but to say that a small number of voters “decide” the election is a major oversimplification of the american system and how it has evolved. here’s how things work: there are 538 electoral collegevotes split among the 50 states and the district of columbia. each state gets at least three votes, depending on the size of their congressional delegation. the smallest states get three (they have two senators and one member of congress). washington, dc, also gets three. the most populous states get a lot more. california gets 54 electoral votes (it has two senators and 52 congressional districts). texas has 40, florida has 30, new york has 28 and so on. the winner is the candidate who gets 270 or more electoral votes. if no candidate gets to 270 electoral votes, the house of representatives picks the winner from among the candidates who got electoral votes. a dozen states were decided by 5 percentage points or less in either the 2016 or 2020 presidential election. in cnn’s 2024 race ratings, maine is the only one of these states rated as solidly in one party’s corner, but one congressional district within maine is seen as competitive. the other 11 states are seen as competitive in the 2024 election. see the ratings here. viewed another way, we can expect that those states where the previous elections have been close to be the ones where the 2024 election will again be close. polling backs up this presumption. in real numbers, the close margins in those relatively few states equal a very small number of voters in a country of more than 330 million people,but they are necessary for either candidate to reach an electoral college count of 270. some of those states came down to tens of thousands of votes. biden won for democrats in five states in 2020   arizona, georgia, pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin   where hillary clinton lost, often by very small margins, in 2016. florida, on the other hand, which has been a battleground for years, went more toward trump in 2020. the campaigns will focus more attentionon the fewer than one third of all electoral votes they consider to be up for grabs or winnable by either party. another thing to consider is that the number of electoral votes was reallocated after the 2020 election due to the every 10 years census required by the constitution. north carolina, colorado and florida, potential battlegrounds, each gained an electoral vote. texas, which democrats have long hoped would become a battleground but which continues to tilt republican despite shifting demographics, also gained two votes. pennsylvania and michigan are among the states that lost a vote. that also means that the populations of these states are changing over time. a battleground in 2024 could look very different in the future. and states that seem safe for either party today could be battlegrounds in the future. for example, virginia broke in biden’s favor by about 10 points in 2020, but some polling this year has suggested a closer race there this time around. two states, maine and nebraska, apportion some oftheir electoral votes by congressional districtrather than giving all of them to the state winner. in 2020, for instance, biden won a single vote in nebraska and trump won a single vote in maine. these individual electoral votescould be incredibly important in the event of a tight election this year. the end result is that, yes, the 2024election could again come down to relatively few voters in relatively few states. but questions remain over who those decisive voters are. are they the voters who make most states reliably red or blue in most elections? are they suburban women who were turned off by trump in 2020, or are they people without a college degree who have moved toward the gop? are they minority voters or women energized by the first woman of color to be this close to the oval office? are they older voters who have been trending toward democrats or younger voters expressing an interest in republicans? are they more disinterested voters who only take part in the process every now and then, or is it a question of which party successfully motivates its stalwarts to turn out no matter what? it will take all of the above for either candidate to win. however, because the margins in certain states could be so small, incremental shifts in the preference or turnout of any larger group of voters could be decisive. this headline and story have been updated with additional information. © 2025 cable news network. a warner bros. discovery company. all rights reserved. cnn sans ™ & © 2016 cable news network.

trump administration national races increasingly come down to the americans who often stay home. what do we know about them? credit...photo illustration by lauren peters collaer supported by by marcela valdes “i wish god gave green noses to undecided voters, because between now and election eve, i’d work only the green noses,” matt reese, one of america’s first full time political consultants, liked to say. decades after reese helped john f. kennedy win the 1960 democratic primary, consultants no longer need to wish for divine intervention. microtargeting   the kind of selective persuasion efforts that reese dreamed of   has become a fixture of 21st century campaigns. field operatives now target swing voters house by house, carrying computer tablets loaded with polling, registration and market research data. and everyone understands that in close presidential elections, a few thousand votes in one state or another may decide the winner. but as americans grow more polarized in their political identities, the number of swing voters diminishes. so a different kind of inconsistent voter grows more important: one who vacillates not so much between parties or candidates but between voting and not voting. let’s call them the “ambivalent voters.” they’re the ones who often believe that showing up at the polls just isn’t worth the hassle. elections, historically, are decided not only by those who cast votes but also by those who don’t. president george w. bush edged out al gore in the 2000 election by 537 ballots in florida. yet there’s a case to be made that the five million floridians who were eligible to vote in that election but did not were the ones who really tipped the balance. and nearly half of americans regularly join the opt out club. the political scientists lyn ragsdale and jerrold g. rusk of rice university have calculated that from 1920 to 2012, the slice of voters who sat out presidential contests averaged 42 percent. according to the university of florida election lab, 34 percent of citizens who were eligible to vote in 2020 did not. but in any given election, those who stay home or tune out may change: fully 25 percent of the ballots in 2020 were cast by people who didn’t vote in 2016. a “nonvoter” can transform into a voter at any time   and if most of them break in the same direction, their decision to participate can be decisive.

the upcoming main navigation can be gotten through utilizing the tab key. any buttons that open a sub navigation can be triggered by the space or enter key. published by the lawfare institute in cooperation with today’s presidential election is expected to be one of the closest in living memory. projections show both vice president kamala harris and former president donald trump well within an average polling error of winning the seven major swing states, any combination of which could deliver them the majority of electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. with the outcome hanging on historically narrow margins, election disputes are likely to be especially consequential and opportunities to manipulate the outcome may well be at an all time high. recent history makes such manipulation a particularly acute concern. in 2020, then president trump and his supporters pursued a number of unprecedented strategies to try and push the election results in their preferred direction, culminating in the violent insurrection that took place at the u.s. capitol on jan. 6, 2021. and numerous reports suggest that trump and his allies may be planning to run back much the same playbook this year, with a few new tricks and adjustments. the most detailed accounts suggest that their plans begin with a disinformation campaign aimed at undermining public confidence in the election results by alleging various forms of election fraud an effort that is arguably already underway. on the basis of these allegations, trump and his allies many of whom have secured positions on local election boards and other relevant bodies will then resist the certification of unfavorable election results at both the local and state levels while pursuing related lawsuits, all efforts that are intended to further undermine public confidence in the election results even if they are ultimately unsuccessful. with public confidence in the election undermined, they will once again lobby republican led state legislatures to abandon the election results and instead simply appoint presidential electors who support trump. failing that, they will push private actors to submit slates of false electors, with the hope that republican allies in congress will be able to count those electors’ votes when determining the president elect. and if this fails, they will at least try to disqualify enough electoral votes that no candidate can secure a majority, kicking the determination of who is the president elect to a contingent election in the house of representatives, where trump is expected to have a solid edge. of course, these efforts all failed in 2020, and many of those involved (including trump himself) are now facing criminal penalties. moreover, in 2022, a bipartisan majority in congress enacted the electoral count reform act (ecra), a law specifically designed to foreclose many of the strategies that trump and his allies had pursued two years prior. the question now is whether these reforms will be enough to stop a new wave of these efforts and whether those seeking to manipulate the election outcome have new strategies that the authors of the ecra may not have anticipated. before the 2020 election, i published a three part series in lawfare that outlined the process for selecting a president and identified various ways different types of disputes might arise and be resolved. this article updates this series with a new, detailed overview of how that process now operates after the enactment of the ecra. i begin with the rules governing the selection of electors by the states, then go on to examine how congress regulates the casting of electoral votes by the members of the electoral college and what rules govern how congress ultimately counts those electoral votes to determine the winner. i then examine two possible outcomes other than the successful selection of a president  and vice president elect: a contingent election decided by the house of representatives and a failed election that results in no candidate qualifying to fill the presidency. at each stage, i give specific consideration to the steps trump and his supporters pursued in 2020 and may pursue again in 2024. i also try to identify new strategies that those hoping to manipulate the outcome of the election might pursue, as well as vulnerabilities that might otherwise compromise the process. this analysis underscores the exceptionally good job the ecra does erecting barriers to the types of strategies that trump and his allies pursued in 2020 and may be planning again in 2024. what vulnerabilities remain within the post ecra system are narrow and will likely be difficult to capitalize on. while there is a lingering risk that certain key actors will not comply with the ecra, this may be an unavoidable aspect of our constitutional system and something that political conditions will hopefully make unlikely in 2024. that said, there remain threats to the outcome of the election that the ecra did not address, including the possibility that a party that is unhappy with the apparent outcome but unable to manipulate the results in its favor may decide to derail the process altogether instead of accepting defeat. states select electors the process for selecting a new president begins with the states, which select the presidential electors who make up the electoral college and actually vote on who becomes the new president and vice president. article ii of the constitution establishes that “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,” presidential electors equal in number to the total number of senators and representatives that the state has in congress. according to the supreme court, this language “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” to state legislatures, to the point that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the president of the united states unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college[.]” in early american elections, several state legislatures used this authority to directly appoint their allotment of presidential electors, among other methods of determination. but for more than a century now, all 50 state legislatures have instead used this authority to allocate their states’ presidential electors on the basis of popular elections. while the exact process varies across states, each political party that qualifies to field a presidential ticket within a state generally nominates a slate of potential electors in advance of election day. pursuant to state laws and regulations, the state then appoints its electors from these slates depending on the results of the election. forty eight states appoint all of their allotted electors from the slate put forward by the party whose presidential ticket wins a plurality of state wide votes. two states maine and nebraska assign one elector to the party whose ticket is the plurality winner in each of the state’s congressional districts and the other two to the party whose ticket wins a plurality statewide. (earlier this year, republican state legislators in nebraska proposed revising this approach and awarding all their electors on the basis of a state wide vote, in part to aid former president trump. but no such legislation has been adopted to date.) under the 23rd amendment, the district of columbia also appoints a number of presidential electors equal to what the district would be entitled if it were a state, but no more than the least populous state a formula that currently amounts to three electors. congress has legislated that these electors should be awarded to the party of the plurality winner in the city as a whole. the district of columbia brings the total number of potential electors in the electoral college to 538 and the minimum number of electors to win the presidency to 270 if every state appoints their full allotment. nonetheless, article ii’s assignment of authority to state legislatures continues to be cited as a potential basis for assigning presidential electors on less democratic grounds. in 2020, supporters of then president trump unsuccessfully lobbied several state legislatures to do so after election day, on the basis of false allegations of electoral fraud. some reports indicate that former president trump’s supporters are urging state legislators to prepare to take similar steps this year. but such schemes hinge on the assumption that state legislatures’ authority to appoint presidential electors is uninhibited, even after an election has already taken place. and the case for that conclusion is even weaker now than it was in 2020. any effort by a state legislature to replace election results could well run afoul of parts of the federal constitution outside the elections clause. as the supreme court held in bush v. gore, “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for president in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental[.]” this means it becomes subject to other constitutional protections, including equal protection and due process, which may limit state legislatures’ ability to insert their preferences over the electorate’s. state laws and constitutions may also set limits on state legislatures’ ability to take such actions, as interpreted by state supreme courts. in the past, some observers have argued that the federal constitution’s vesting of authority over elections expressly in state legislatures actually insulates those state legislatures from these sorts of state law requirements, in what has come to be known as the “independent state legislature” theory. but the u.s. supreme court largely rejected this argument in its 2023 holding in moore v. harper. in an opinion by chief justice john roberts, the 6 3 majority confirmed that “[t]he elections clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review[,]” though it retained a role for federal courts in reviewing whether state courts had “transgress[ed] the ordinary bounds of judicial review” in a manner that “arrogate[s] to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.” congress also hedged against this possibility in the ecra. while the conduct of presidential elections is primarily governed by state law, article ii of the constitution still gives congress the authority to “determine the time of chusing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes[.]” congress has in turn used this authority to establish by statute that electors “shall be appointed, in each state, on election day” statutorily defined as the “tuesday next after the first monday in november” of every fourth year, which falls on nov. 5 this year “in accordance with the laws of the state enacted prior to election day” (emphasis added). this effectively bars state legislatures from enacting new legislation to reallocate electors after election day takes place, though legislative provisions assigning electors on a basis other than elections enacted prior to election day would still be valid. as discussed below, the ecra reiterates this requirement in several other statutory provisions as well. the ecra also installed a provision allowing “a state that appoints electors by popular vote” to “modif[y] the period of voting, as necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic, as provided under laws of the state enacted prior to such day[.]” this allows states to push back election day in the event of an emergency (such as a natural disaster), provided that the state assigns electors on the basis of a popular vote and only if the state laws authorizing the shift are enacted prior to the original election day. this replaced an earlier (since repealed) provision that tried to account for such emergencies but that many feared would instead open the door to the possible manipulation of election results by state legislatures. together, these provisions are designed to foreclose one of the main strategies that supporters of former president trump used to try to turn the election results in his favor in 2020: having state legislatures directly appoint electors in lieu of the election results. for this to occur consistent with the ecra, state legislatures would, at a minimum, have had to enact legislation allowing for such a step prior to election day. to the author’s knowledge, only one state has: north carolina, which in 2001, following the controversy over florida’s vote count that was ultimately resolved in bush v. gore, preauthorized its general assembly and, failing that, its governor to appoint the state’s allotment of presidential electors if election results are disputed past a certain point. even then, any exercise of this authority would have to surmount possible federal and state constitutional barriers. and there is also a question as to whether this provision is consistent with the ecra’s own emergency provision, which allows for such delayed appointments only in circumstances of force majeure where the outcome is to be determined by popular vote conditions not met here. the only remaining possibility is that a state legislature could assert that it has the exclusive constitutional authority to select electors, in a manner that congress cannot regulate through statutes like the ecra that implement its own election related constitutional authorities. for this argument to be vindicated, however, a state legislature would not have to act, but its theory would have to be vindicated in federal court. this seems unlikely. while this exact issue wasn’t squarely addressed in moore v. harper, the supreme court’s skepticism of broad forms of independent state legislature theory suggests that such an argument is unlikely to carry the day. further, as discussed below, the ecra provides expedited procedures by which these sorts of critical questions of federal law can be adjudicated all the way up to the supreme court before any counting of electoral votes is supposed to take place. in this sense, the ecra does everything congress constitutionally can do to shut the door on a state legislature substituting its own judgment for that of the voters, up to and including setting up procedures to resolve any relevant constitutional claims in a timely manner. the electoral college votes once election day is over, it is up to state authorities to determine who has won and to appoint electors accordingly, in line with their state laws. their timeline for doing so, however, is subject to parameters established by congress, pursuant to both its constitutional authority to “determine the time of chusing the electors” and the constitutional role it plays in counting electoral votes. for well over a century, the 1887 electoral count act set forth a convoluted regime that sought to encourage states to appoint their electors in a timely manner, in part by establishing a safe harbor in which electors’ votes would be treated as conclusive by congress when counting electoral votes. but in 2020, experts became concerned that ambiguities in this long standing process opened the door to possible election manipulation. for this reason, the 2022 ecra largely did away with this statutory regime and replaced it with something decidedly more streamlined. today, federal law provides that electors “shall meet and give their votes on the first tuesday after the second wednesday in december next following their appointment at such place in each state in accordance with the laws of the state enacted prior to election day.” in 2024, this falls on dec. 17. the executive of each state identified as the governor (or, in the district of columbia, the mayor) unless otherwise defined in relevant state law is in turn required to “issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors” no later than six days prior to this date, meaning dec. 11 this year, pursuant to state laws “enacted prior to election day.” one copy of this certificate is in turn transmitted to the archivist of the united states who is obligated to preserve the original, retain a copy in the public records, and make the original open to public inspection while six are given to the selected electors. following the ecra, federal law provides that this certification “shall be treated as conclusive in congress with respect to the determination of electors appointed by the state” when it later counts electoral votes. the only exception is where any certificate of ascertainment is “required to be issued or revised by any state or federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors[,]” meaning dec. 17 this year, in which case this court mandated certification “shall replace and supersede any other certificates submitted” and be treated as “conclusive” instead. under the ecra, only electoral votes from electors whose appointment is supported by a conclusive certification are to be counted by congress when determining the new president and vice president. hence, if a state fails to resolve disputes over its election by the date electors are supposed to vote and thus cannot issue any “conclusive” certification, it risks effectively losing its electoral votes altogether. this creates a strong incentive for state executives and other relevant state officials to make their determination regarding the proper electors for their state by dec. 11, and for state and federal courts to resolve any related legal disputes prior to when the electors actually cast their votes on dec. 17. the main mechanisms for resolving election disputes are the diverse legal procedures that different states have for resolving state law disputes relating to the ascertainment of electors, which can range from administrative proceedings to litigation in state court. where local election officials refuse to certify results or there are allegations of election fraud, the resulting disputes are most likely to be channeled through these sorts of proceedings (and, in certain circumstances, into federal court). candidates and other interested parties will be free to pursue such claims by all available avenues through dec. 11, at which point the state executive will have to make a determination as to which electors should be appointed. this determination will then still be subject to a final period of potential federal and state litigation, as either type of court can mandate that the certificate of ascertainment be changed up to the dec. 17 counting of electoral votes. this prevents the state executive from trying to avoid legal challenges by not making the formal appointment until just before the electoral votes are cast. the ecra also installed expedited procedures for any federal litigation that presidential or vice presidential candidates might pursue over questions of federal law relating to the issuance and transmission of the certification in a given state, including constitutional claims and competing assertions of constitutional authority. candidates may pursue litigation over these issues in the federal district court where the relevant state has its capital. a three judge panel convened in line with existing procedures, but consisting of two appellate judges and one district court judge is then tasked with “advanc[ing] on the docket and … expedit[ing] to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action[.]” its resolution can then be appealed directly to the supreme court, which may take up the matter “on an expedited basis, so that a final order of the court on remand of the supreme court may occur on or before the day before the time fixed for the meeting of electors.” this is in addition to any other federal causes of action the candidate may have available to them. on the appointed day (this year dec. 17), the duly appointed electors are tasked with gathering at a location in their state specified by relevant state laws and casting their votes for president and vice president “in the manner directed by the constitution.” the 12th amendment in turn directs electors to “vote by ballot for president and vice president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves” a requirement that prevents a presidential ticket from having two candidates from the same state. in most cases, the fact that electors are selected from the political party of the winning presidential ticket is enough to assure that they will vote for the intended candidates. most states also have laws in place that require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate of the party they are representing, while punishing or replacing electors who fail to do so measures the supreme court has repeatedly upheld as constitutional. that said, some “faithless electors” may still be able and willing to cast votes for candidates other than the ones voted on by their respective states, introducing a slight element of unpredictability into the results. once the voting is complete, the 12th amendment directs the electors in each state to record their votes in a specific fashion and transmit them “to the seat of government … directed to the president of the senate[.]” post ecra federal law goes further and requires that each group of electors make out six certificates recording their votes, each of which contains a copy of the certificate of ascertainment provided to them by their state executive, then securely seal these packets and certify that the votes for president and vice president are contained therein. these copies are then to be sent “by the most expeditious method available” to several relevant officials: one copy to the president of the u.s. senate (i.e., the vice president); two copies to their state’s chief election officer, which must retain one copy and make the other open to public inspection; two copies to the archivist of the united states, who maintains one copy subject to an order from the president of the senate while inserting the other into the public record and making it available for public inspection; and a sixth copy to the federal judge of the district in which the electors assembled. if the archivist or president of the senate does not receive their copies by the fourth wednesday in december (this year dec. 25), federal law directs them to call upon the relevant state’s chief election official and the appropriate federal district court judge to provide the copies they should have received separately. these procedures hedge against another type of scheme that supporters of former president trump deployed in 2020: the appointment of alternate panels of electors, who submitted false electoral votes to congress and other relevant recipients, in the hopes that trump’s allies in congress would accept them as valid in place of the votes cast by the official electors. by only treating a timely certification issued by a state executive as conclusive and only replacing this certification if required by a state or federal court the ecra effectively renders any alternate slates of electors moot. that said, this arrangement is premised on the sanction that votes issued by electors whose authority is not backed up by a conclusive certificate of ascertainment will be disregarded. and the ecra’s ability to guarantee this outcome is in turn contingent on congress’s constitutional authority to set the parameters for the next step in the process: how congress goes about counting the electoral votes. congress counts the electoral votes once the electors in each state cast their votes and transmit them to the relevant parties, their role in the process is largely done. at this point, congress steps in to count the electoral votes and finalize the election results. this is the process that was notoriously disrupted by a violent insurrection on jan. 6, 2021, after then vice president mike pence made clear that he would not discard valid electoral votes nor substitute in the votes of alternate unofficial electors, as former president trump and his supporters had called on him to do. perhaps unsurprisingly, this process and the possibility of such subversion was also the main focus of the reforms installed by congress through the ecra. the constitution is somewhat vague on how precisely electoral votes should be counted. the 12th amendment states simply that “[t]he president of the senate[,]” a role generally filled by vice president, “shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates” received from states’ electors “and the votes shall then be counted[.]” (notably, however, the vice president has sometimes allowed this role to be played by the senate’s president pro tempore currently sen. patty murray (d. wash.). that may be what happens this year, as vice president kamala harris is one of the two leading candidates for the presidency.) the passive voice of this final directive leaves open the question as to who, precisely, does the counting on behalf of the federal government and, perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide which votes get counted and which do not. since the time of the framers, congress has taken this responsibility unto itself under its authority to, among other things, “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the rest of the constitution. this has long included statutory measures relating to the counting of electoral votes like the ecra. before discussing congress’s role in this procedure, however, some thought must be given to congress’s own composition. after all, every member of the house and about a third of the senate are also up for election in 2024. any major election dispute that impacts the presidency may also impact congressional elections, as the votes for each are generally cast on the same sets of ballots. moreover, the 20th amendment ends the terms of outgoing members of congress at noon on jan. 3 and requires that the new congress convene an hour later, unless congress enacts a different date and time by statute meaning it is the newly seated congress that counts electoral votes on jan. 6, not the outgoing one that was in place at the time of the election (as was the case prior to the 20th amendment). moreover, as article i of the constitution makes each chamber of congress “the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members[,]” it is also up to the newly seated house and senate to resolve any outstanding disputes regarding their own membership. the general process each uses for doing so is much the same as it was in 2020. but it can be lengthy to execute, leading to months of uncertainty as to who actually represents different states in congress. this introduces an additional twist of unpredictability in the presidential selection process, as outcomes contingent on congressional action may in turn hinge on preliminary election results or vacancies in certain key congressional seats. the newly seated house has another major responsibility as well: as one of its first acts, it is supposed to elect a new speaker on the basis of a majority vote, just days prior to the counting of electoral votes. as the internal power struggle within the republican house caucus over the speaker position last year demonstrated, selecting a speaker can be a difficult and contentious process, especially when the majority party only has the narrowest possible control of the chamber, meaning electing a speaker requires near unanimity among that caucus’s members. it is not hard to imagine this process once again taking several days, which may in turn complicate (but will not necessarily prevent) the house’s participation in the counting of electoral votes. whatever shape congress is in, federal law mandates that it “shall be in session on the sixth day of january succeeding every meeting of the electors” and that “[t]he senate and house of representatives shall meet in the hall of the house of representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day,” with “the president of the senate” as “their presiding officer.” this use of a joint session of congress is intended to satisfy the 12th amendment’s requirement that the electoral votes be counted “in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives[.]” what threshold of attendance is required is unclear, both constitutionally and statutorily. but article i of the constitution establishes that “a majority of each [chamber of congress] shall constitute a quorum to do business,” a requirement that may well apply in the context of counting electoral votes as well. at a minimum, this is almost certainly sufficient to satisfy the relevant constitutional and statutory requirements. the house and senate generally enter into this joint session through the passage of a concurrent resolution approved by a majority in both chambers. in recent years (including 2021), this concurrent resolution has reiterated federal statutory requirements relating to the counting of electoral votes and even incorporated those laws by reference. such language is important, as it helps to address a long standing criticism of the various statutory provisions relating to the counting of electoral votes, including those installed by the 2022 ecra: that such statutes cannot constitutionally bind the house and senate, as article i of the constitution empowers each chamber to “determine the rules of its proceedings[,]” including in the joint session to count electoral votes. by incorporating existing statutory rules into the concurrent resolution initiating the joint session, the two chambers of congress effectively adopt those rules as part of their own rules of procedure under their own rule making authority, rendering irrelevant the question of whether statutes like the ecra can legally bind them. these rules in turn severely constrain the structure and procedures of the joint session so as to keep it narrowly focused on finalizing the results of the presidential election. indeed, they require that the joint session finalize counting the electoral votes before dissolving and only allow for brief recesses so that the individual chambers can consider substantive questions and, even then, only if less than five days have passed since the original joint session convened, at which point recesses are barred altogether. the most important provisions installed by the ecra are new procedures and guidelines for counting the electoral votes. these replaced provisions of the 1887 electoral count act that were widely seen as a source of ambiguity and uncertainty in 2020. federal law now directs that the presiding officers of the house and senate to each appoint two tellers, who join the president of the senate in counting the electoral votes. acting in alphabetical order by state, the president of the senate opens “the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the votes of electors appointed pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors” issued by state executives (or at the direction of a court order) as discussed above, reads the contents, and then hands the documentation to the tellers who do the same. the tellers then count the votes and maintain a tally. “[o]nly the votes of electors who have been appointed under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors” (or those “who have legally been appointed to fill a vacancy of any such elector,” pursuant to state laws) are to be counted. no such vote is to be rejected so long as it was “regularly given[.]” by design, this process creates a strong bias toward only counting the electoral votes of whichever electors have certificates of ascertainment approved by state executives (or pursuant to court orders where the former are superseded). as discussed above, such certificates are valid only if finalized prior to dec. 11 (or dec. 17 in the case of certifications that federal or state courts require to be issued or changed). in this sense, the whole system reinforces whatever the conclusive outcome is from state procedures and election related litigation in federal and state courts. moreover, as duplicate official copies of the certificates of ascertainment and related electoral votes are also sent to the archivist of the united states and state election officials who are required to make them publicly available there will be ample evidence if, somehow, those involved in counting electoral votes try to depart from this formula. nonetheless, the rules installed by the ecra do still provide a limited process for objecting to the counting of certain electoral votes and resolving other procedural questions that might arise along the way. the president of the senate is required to call for questions or objections after the reading of the various submissions for each state. both questions and objections must then be made in writing, without supplemental argument and with the support of at least one fifth of the members “duly chosen and sworn” of each the house and the senate. while questions may address any range of procedural matters, the only valid grounds for an objection to counting a given electoral vote are that the electors presented for a given state “were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment” or that the vote itself was not “regularly given.” once all of the valid questions and objections for a given state are made, the house and senate are required to withdraw and debate them separately, pursuant to a tight statutorily defined timeline of no more than two hours. at the end of this period, each chamber votes and only those questions or objections sustained by a majority of both chambers stand. notably, what it means for an elector’s vote to be “regularly given” is not defined in statute. the language itself predates the ecra, which presumably left it in place with the intent that it be interpreted in line with past practice. legal scholars have argued that this term should be interpreted narrowly to mean that an elector has voted in a manner inconsistent with the law, such as for a constitutionally ineligible candidate, at a time inconsistent with that set by congress, or as a result of bribery. that said, members of congress from both parties have (unsuccessfully) pursued “regularly given” objections on the basis of a much broader range of objections in the past, including unsubstantiated doubts about the validity of the underlying election a pattern that may continue under the new ecra, though only if such members of congress can get a fifth of their colleagues in both chambers to support such an effort. of course, even under a narrow definition, electoral votes cast in support of former president trump in 2024 may face objections that they were not regularly given on one set of familiar (if quite controversial) grounds: that his participation in the jan. 6 insurrection makes him ineligible to hold office under section 3 of the 14th amendment. while the supreme court refused to let a state use such legal grounds to keep trump off the ballot in its trump v. anderson decision earlier this year, ambiguities in the per curiam opinion and paired concurrences leave it unclear whether the court also precluded congressional disqualification as part of the process of counting electoral votes. such an objection may even stand a chance of getting the requisite one fifth support in both chambers to be made, if backed by a substantial number of democrats in both chambers. that said, it’s far less clear that any such measure will receive the majority votes necessary to be upheld by a majority of both chambers in a manner that changes the election outcome. and even if it does, any decision congress makes may well be challenged in federal court, potentially all the way back to the supreme court. the 12th amendment states that “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed[.]” but it does not clarify what should happen if a state doesn’t successfully appoint electors on the timeline set by congress or if those electors’ votes are disqualified. in the past, congress has been inconsistent as to whether the missing or disqualified electors still count toward the total used to determine the majority a candidate must reach to win the presidency or vice presidency, or whether they should be removed from that total. the ecra resolved this question by requiring that “the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the twelfth amendment to the constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the state has failed to appoint or as to whom [an] objection was sustained” that the electors had not been appointed by a conclusive certificate of ascertainment. this rule does not apply, however, if an elector’s vote is successfully objected to on the grounds that it was not “regularly given[.]” this might be read to imply that any such electors remain part of the total number used to calculate a majority for 12th amendment purposes. alternatively, the lack of an established statutory default rule may simply leave the question up to congress to resolve at the joint session through established procedures, if and when it arises. throughout these proceedings, the president of the senate (usually the vice president) is statutorily empowered to “preserve order[,]” which federal law also leaves undefined. in the past, similarly open ended statutory language was cited alongside the vice president’s constitutional role in counting electoral votes as evidence in support of the proposition advanced unsuccessfully by former president trump’s supporters in 2020 that the president of the senate has the sole discretion to decide which electoral votes to count. to nip such arguments in the bud, provisions introduced by the ecra confirm that the president of the senate’s role “shall be limited to performing solely ministerial duties” and includes “no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.” of course, if one believes that the constitution gives the president of the senate more authority than this, then these sorts of restrictive statutory provisions are likely to be seen as unconstitutional. at a minimum, however, this language confirms that, in this statutory context, “preserve order” is best understood as the authority to chair the joint session and rule on the sorts of procedural matters that such a role usually entails, not to make the sort of substantive determinations the ecra expressly puts beyond the president of the senate’s reach. once all the received certificates are opened and read for all of the states (and the district of columbia), the tellers report the results to the vice president, who reads them to the assembled body and has them entered into the journals of both chambers, formally establishing who is the new president  and vice president elect. this in turn satisfies the 12th amendment’s requirement that the incumbent vice president “open all the certificates” and that “the votes … be counted” in the “presence of the senate and house of representatives,” bringing the presidential selection process to its constitutional conclusion. by design, the ecra structures the counting of electoral votes in a manner that severely limits opportunities for manipulation. each state has only one conclusive slate of electors and only the votes cast by that slate are to be counted, making alternate slates of false electors a moot exercise if they are not backed up by a state executive or state or federal court ruling. nor is it easy to try and disqualify electors or their votes, as even motioning to do so requires the support of a fifth of each chamber and can be on only one of two possible grounds (and requires a majority of both chambers to implement). only disqualification of an electoral vote on the grounds that it was not “regularly given” is arguably open ended in this regard, and only if one ignores both past practice and the apparent intent of congress in enacting the ecra. in short, within the confines of the ecra, there appear to be relatively few avenues by which one can readily manipulate the outcome. but congress could try to operate outside the ecra. a majority of both chambers might be unwilling to reiterate or incorporate the ecra’s rules into the concurrent resolution initiating the joint session to count electoral votes, creating uncertainty as to whether those rules apply and opening the door for members to act contrary to them. alternatively, the house and senate might choose to adopt different rules and procedures that depart from the ecra. or they may agree to take measures contrary to the ecra for example, by accepting electoral votes not backed by a conclusive certificate of ascertainment or disqualifying electoral votes on grounds other than the two recognized by the ecra. any of these moves would likely tee up the legal question whether the ecra can in fact bind future congresses for judicial resolution. given that the constitution assigns each chamber the authority to “determine the rules of its proceedings[,]” language the supreme court has interpreted as giving the house and senate broad latitude in conducting their own internal affairs, there is a good argument that statutes like the ecra cannot, in fact, bind those chambers in how they conduct their proceedings. for this reason, those provisions of the ecra that relate to procedures during the joint session and in each chamber of congress are perhaps best understood as a joint exercise of both chambers’ rulemaking authority, meaning they establish default rules that can be superseded by either chamber pursuant to their own rulemaking authority. (instead, however, the newly seated house and senate generally reiterate those rules by incorporating the relevant rules into the concurrent resolution they adopt to initiate the joint session to count electoral votes, as discussed above.) for its part, the supreme court has often left it up to congress to enforce its own procedural rules an approach that, in this case, would likely leave both the house and senate free to enact alternate rules that depart from the ecra’s statutory requirements under their own rulemaking authority, if they so pleased. that said, doing so at the joint session would require majority support in both chambers. at a minimum, this seems unlikely this year, as control of both chambers is likely to be by slim margins and many of the sponsors and supporters of the ecra from both political parties are likely to still be in congress. alternatively, other actors within congress might seek to act contrary to the ecra without adopting alternate rules. the clearest possibility is the president of the senate, who might embrace questionable legal theories asserting that they have the sole constitutional authority to decide on the validity of electoral votes, in spite of the ecra or other legislation a position that was urged on then vice president mike pence in 2020 and that certain supporters of former president trump continue to advance. this seems exceptionally unlikely this year, given vice president kamala harris’s past criticism of such strategies, but other presidents of the senate may be less restrained in the future. regardless, any actions by the president of the senate along these lines are likely to be challenged, first through congress’s own procedural process most likely that for “questions” during the joint session under the ecra and then potentially in federal court. but the president of the senate may nonetheless declare the counting of electoral votes concluded before one or both procedures come to their conclusion, and thereby identify a purported president  and vice president elect. as they hinge on unsupported assertions of superseding constitutional authority, such actions are not something that congress can readily legislate around. that said, at least in 2024, such manipulations can go only so far. for a president elect to become the effective president on jan. 20, being declared as such by the president of the senate or even congress is not itself enough. instead, the executive branch that is supposed to follow the president’s direction has to view that outcome as legal and legitimate as well. the responsibility for making this legal assessment on the part of the executive branch is likely to fall to attorney general merrick garland and his subordinates in the office of legal counsel, who unlike the president and vice president remain in office past jan. 20, unless and until they resign or are removed. (or, if these individuals have resigned, then this role will be filled by whatever justice department officials are acting in these capacities.) their resulting legal determination, which is generally understood to be binding on the executive branch, will likely determine who, if anyone, the executive branch accepts and follows as president, unless and until their views are superseded by a judicial ruling. in this sense, attempts by a president of the senate to effectively appoint an alternate president elect at least those without the support of the incumbent administration or the federal courts may prove to be of more symbolic than substantive importance. for all these reasons, the types of electoral manipulations that former president trump and his supporters attempted in 2020 are unlikely to be successful in 2024. the ecra goes about as far as congress can go in foreclosing these sorts of manipulations. and while there may be constitutional limits on congress’s ability to do so, the political conditions for testing them seem unlikely to emerge in regard to this year’s election. that said, the ecra goes only so far as to govern the process for counting electoral votes. and there are at least two scenarios with a direct bearing on the selection of a president that might arise outside of this process: a contingent election, and a failed one. contingent elections even if the electoral votes are counted without controversy, there is no guarantee that any one candidate will secure the “majority of the whole number of electors appointed” constitutionally required to become president  (or vice president ) elect. the framers accounted for this possibility in the constitution and then amended the process for resolving such a scenario a few years later, after their first encounter with this sort of “contingent election” proved less than satisfactory. more recently, there have been concerns that one party may try to trigger a contingent election by preventing any candidate from securing a majority of electoral votes, on the belief that a contingent election is more likely to result in their preferred candidate being elected. congress chose not to address the rules governing this process when it enacted the ecra. instead, it sought to address these concerns by making it far less likely that a contingent election will ever take place. contingent elections have occurred only a handful of times in american history. in 1800, a tie in the electoral college between aaron burr and thomas jefferson threw the presidential contest into the house of representatives, pursuant to a process laid out in the original text of the constitution. in 1804, following the burr jefferson contest, this process was changed through the 12th amendment. the revised process has been used only twice since to elect a president in 1825 and a vice president in 1837 leaving few useful precedents for how such proceedings should operate. the 12th amendment states that, if no candidate receives the majority of electoral votes needed to be president, then the house “shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president” from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. this echoes the original language in article ii of the constitution superseded by the 12th amendment which required that the house “immediately chuse by ballot one of [the candidates] for president” among those who received the most electoral votes. the house seems to have adhered to a literal interpretation of these requirements in both 1801 and 1825: it entered deliberations directly from the joint session for counting electoral votes without considering other business, and used written paper ballots submitted in secret. members of the house do not each submit their own votes, however. the 12th amendment indicates that members’ votes are to “be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote[,]” with each state delegation receiving a single vote. both in 1801 and 1825, the house executed this unorthodox process through a two tier voting system, through which each state delegation decided its vote internally on a majority basis and then cast a unified second ballot on that basis as a delegation. the 12th amendment only requires that at least one member from two thirds of the states be present to establish a quorum for this process, but demands that a candidate receive the support of a majority of all states in order to be elected president. the district of columbia has no vote and plays no part in this process, despite having been granted electoral votes by the 23rd amendment. while the house resolves any tie among presidential candidates, a tie between vice presidential candidates goes to the senate. the senate has used this process only once, in 1837. during that contest, the senate entered into the process directly from the joint session for counting electoral votes, even though the 12th amendment doesn’t require that this process be started “immediately.” unlike their house counterparts, senators are free to vote individually, with two thirds necessary for quorum but support from a majority of all senators necessary to become the new vice president. no statute governs how contingent elections should be handled. in 1825, the house managed its proceedings by forming a special select committee composed of a representative from each state that settled on the applicable rules, including meeting in closed session and requiring that motions be made and seconded by state delegations, not individual members. by contrast, the 1837 proceedings in the senate appear to have been conducted by the conventional rules applying to proceedings in that chamber; the matter of who became vice president was ultimately resolved in short order by voice vote. today’s house and senate would presumably not be bound by these precedents if a contingent election were to arise today, but instead would be similarly empowered to select their own rules. if somehow the 2024 election does come down to a contingent election, most believe it would favor former president trump. even if they lose control of the house, republicans are expected to maintain the majority control of a majority of state delegations necessary to determine the president. republicans are also currently projected to have a majority in the senate, which would allow them to select the vice president. that said, the results of 2024 congressional elections may well depart from these projections and change the calculus as to who would most likely win. so could even a small number of defectors who decline to vote the party line, given the narrow margins by which any party is likely to control either chamber. for its part, the ecra did not address how to handle contingent elections. but it did clarify what a “majority of the whole number of electors appointed” means in practice by expressly providing that “the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the 12th amendment to the constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the state has failed to appoint or as to whom [an] objection was sustained[.]” as a result, even if some controversy prevents a state’s electors from being finalized by the statutory deadline or congress votes to disqualify electors on similar grounds this doesn’t make it any harder for a candidate to win. instead, a candidate need only win a majority of the remaining electors to become president. in a two candidate race (as in 2024) where all the electors who cast votes have those votes counted, this means a contingent election will only come about in the unlikely scenario where there is a perfect tie among the candidates. of course, this does not make contingent elections impossible. a majority in both chambers of congress might still be able to supersede the rules established by the ecra and reopen the door to maneuvers that prevent any candidate from securing a majority of electoral votes. or congress might conclude both that a number of electoral votes were not “regularly given,” reducing the total number of electoral votes available and making it more likely no candidate will be able to secure a majority. in a future election, a credible third party candidate could similarly make contingent elections a much more likely phenomenon. yet these remaining avenues to a contingent election are undoubtedly far narrower and less susceptible to manipulation than those that existed in 2020 and before. in this sense, throwing the 2024 election to the house to decide a possibility that trump is still reportedly exploring is likely to be massively more difficult than it has been in the past. failed elections the formal procedure for selecting a new president (and vice president) laid out in the constitution and related statutes more or less comes to an end with a contingent election. but no account of how the united states selects a president would be complete without discussing one final possibility: that it simply fails altogether. there are myriad ways that the process for selecting a president could become derailed and fail to yield a president  or vice president elect by the constitutionally mandated end of the incumbents’ terms at noon on jan. 20, 2025. one possibility is that a contingent election could still be deadlocked, with no candidate able to capture a majority of state delegations in the house. another is that a majority of either the house or senate could simply refuse to participate in the joint session to count electoral votes altogether, denying quorum and thereby raising constitutional doubt as to whether the counting of electoral votes took place “in the presence of the senate and house of representatives” as constitutionally required. of course, there are counterarguments some might deploy in the latter scenario: that counting electoral votes “in the presence of the senate and house of representatives” does not actually require a quorum, for example, or that the ecra’s statutory directive that “congress shall be in session” on jan. 6 is itself adequate to establish a presumptive quorum. both the house and senate also have procedures for compelling absent members to attend that they would no doubt deploy. but pursuing any of these avenues or the litigation they may yield could well take time, leaving it unclear who should enter the white house when the incumbents’ terms end about two weeks later. the 20th amendment provides only a partial answer. “if a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of a new term ... ,” it states, “the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.” after all, even if the house is deadlocked in a contingent election, the senate may have had more luck selecting a new vice president. if no vice president has been selected either, then the 20th amendment allows that “congress may by law provide” an appropriate remedy for selecting an acting president, who will fill that role until a president or vice president is qualified. notably, this mostly (but not entirely) parallels the language on succession in article ii of the constitution, which says that “congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the president and vice president, declaring what officer shall then act as president[,]” but does not specifically authorize congress to address vacancies arising from a failed or stalled electoral process. (the 20th amendment also allows congress to enact legislation addressing what happens if a candidate for president or vice president dies before a contingent election.) congress appears to have used the authority provided by the 20th amendment when it enacted the presidential succession act of 1947. that act expressly covers situations where “there is neither a president nor vice president” by reason of “failure to qualify[,]” language that seems intended to cover a scenario where the counting of electoral votes or contingent election process is inconclusive when the offices of president and vice president become vacant. under the act, the first contingency in such circumstances would be for the newly elected speaker of the house to become president as soon as he or she resigns from congress. if there is no speaker, then the presidency passes to the president pro tempore of the senate, an elected position traditionally given to the most senior senator of the majority party, on the same conditions. if either is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president if they are not a natural born u.s. citizen, for example, or under 35 years old or refused to resign from their current position, succession goes to the next in line. in either case, the individual appointed serves as acting president until a qualified and competent president or vice president emerges or, if that never happens, until the end of the current presidential term. if neither the speaker of the house nor the president pro tempore is available and qualified, then the act turns to another set of officials: the cabinet, or at least those members who have been “appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,” prior to the vacancy. (this provision leaves it unclear whether cabinet officials who received senate advice and consent for another position and are serving on the cabinet in an acting capacity a common phenomenon in the prior trump administration are eligible.) in this case, this would be the incumbent cabinet of the biden administration, as cabinet officials’ terms in office do not automatically end with the term of the president who appointed them. the presidential succession act establishes a sequence in which these officials will fill the presidency if available and qualified, based on seniority: the secretary of state is first, then the secretary of the treasury, secretary of defense, and attorney general, followed by the remainder of the cabinet until the most recent addition, the secretary of homeland security. whoever ultimately takes on the role of acting president automatically resigns from their cabinet role as soon as they take the requisite oath of office. if a speaker of the house or president pro tempore of the senate becomes qualified and eligible during the cabinet member’s time as acting president, then they will supplant the cabinet official in question as chief executive. so will a president or vice president, if one later comes to be qualified by a completed contingent election or counting of electoral votes (or a subsequent election). there are circumstances in which this line of succession might create some perverse incentives, particularly if a sufficient bloc in congress prefers those in the line of succession over whoever is likely to win an election. the house, for example, selects its speaker by majority vote shortly before congress counts the electoral votes and while the speaker has always been a member of the house in the past, it can technically be anyone the house chooses. this means that, in theory, a simple majority of the house could effectively select the acting president by electing a speaker of their choice and then refusing to participate in the process of counting electoral votes, preventing the presidential selection process set out by the 12th amendment from reaching its conclusion. this would result in their newly elected speaker becoming acting president under the act on jan. 20, at least until a president or vice president were qualified or some other institution (like the federal courts) stepped in and compelled a different outcome. nor is this the only way the house might manipulate the line of succession in its preferred direction. to be eligible to stand in the line of succession, the act requires that cabinet officials “not [be] under impeachment by the house of representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of president devolve upon them.” as impeachment only requires a simple house majority and carries across congresses, this may provide a mechanism by which a house majority in the lame duck 118th or early 119th congresses can disqualify incumbent cabinet officials from serving as acting president if the act were to be invoked. aspects of the presidential succession act have also been the subject of constitutional doubt. legal scholars have argued that the constitution restricts the presidency to members of the executive branch. specifically, they contend that article ii states that congress may only “declar[e] what officer” inherits the role (emphasis added) and that this use of “[o]fficer” refers to officials within the executive branch, making the provisions of the act that would pass the acting presidency on to the speaker of the house or president pro tempore unconstitutional. this view has been a minority one since the first congress, which installed legislative officers in its original line of presidential succession. nonetheless, it continues to carry substantial weight among contemporary lawyers who see the constitution as requiring a sharp separation between the political branches a community that may well include a majority of the current supreme court. of course, the situation is arguably different when it comes to the act’s provisions governing what happens when each candidate “fail[s] to qualify” for the presidency and vice presidency. the 20th amendment, not article ii, provides congress the authority to address such scenarios. and the 20th amendment uses the much broader term “person[s]” to identify who may serve as acting president, not “[o]fficer[s].” this suggests that, even if the use of “[o]fficers” in article ii should be read as limiting succession to executive branch officials, this limitation does not apply to “fail[ure] to qualify” scenarios covered by the 20th amendment, which allows congress to insert any eligible “person” into the line of succession. these differing constitutional interpretations are likely to become a point of dispute if and when a failed election leads to the presidential succession act being used to fill the white house. the supreme court will almost certainly have to resolve this question, and there seem likely to be numerous parties willing and able to litigate the dispute to a full conclusion. doing so will take time, however. in the interim, control of the executive branch is likely to hinge on how the executive branch itself understands the presidential succession act and the relevant requirements of the constitution. once again, in the absence of a president, attorney general garland or his delegees in the office of legal counsel (or, if these officials have resigned, those filling these roles in an acting capacity) will most likely be responsible for articulating a legal position that is binding on the rest of the executive branch. in this sense, they will be the ones who determine who will be able to act as president, at least until the federal courts say otherwise or until congress finally completes the process for selecting a new, permanent president or vice president. implications for 2024 and beyond for those concerned about the possibility of election manipulation in 2024, this analysis should be heartening. the ecra is designed to foreclose the sorts of strategies that supporters of former president trump used to try and affect the election outcome in 2020. and with a few minor exceptions such as the lingering ambiguity surrounding the meaning of “regularly given” it seems to do so successfully. this does not mean that people will not try, or that there will not be a flood of related legal action in the weeks following the election indeed, there almost certainly will be. but so long as the ecra is applied as written, opportunities to turn the outcome of the election in one’s favor are likely to be far slimmer than in 2020. those weaknesses that remain have less to do with the ecra itself and more to do with the constitution itself. there may well be constitutional limits on one congress’s ability to legislate how future congresses count electoral votes, which means that a majority in both chambers most likely could choose to abandon or supersede statutory rules like those set out in the ecra when counting electoral votes. and however implausible it may seem on the merits, the vice president (as president of the senate) can claim and try to act on far broader constitutional authority over electoral vote determinations than the ecra allows, at least and until they are corrected by the federal courts. neither possibility seems likely in 2024, as the ecra should have enough remaining bipartisan support in (at least one chamber of) congress and vice president harris has already publicly rejected the idea that she has such broad constitutional authority. but they may be of greater concern in future elections subject to less favorable political conditions. instead, the greater threat to the 2024 presidential election may be a collapse of the system as a whole. the fact that the constitution requires that electoral votes be counted in the presence of both chambers of congress arguably gives each the capacity to derail those proceedings by refusing to cooperate. a majority in either chamber might choose to do so if they prefer the presidential line of succession over the winner of the 2024 election, or even just as perhaps the last remaining means of protesting the results and reducing public confidence in the presumed president elect. or internal discord such as that reflected in the recent internal republican fight over the speaker of the house position may unintentionally limit one chamber’s ability to participate. and while neither source of disruption is likely to be permanent, either could readily extend past the two weeks between the joint session to count electoral votes and the inauguration, leaving it unclear who will succeed president biden when his term comes to its constitutionally mandated end. this may be the most novel takeaway from this assessment: in addition to preparing for maneuvers like those trump and his supporters attempted in 2020, candidates, members of congress, and outside advocates also need to prepare themselves for novel steps certain contingents in congress might take to disrupt the proceedings altogether. within the executive branch, the attorney general and the office of legal counsel need to consider how they will interpret the presidential succession act and other key authorities if and when no president elect is in place by jan. 20. indeed, publicly releasing these interpretations and related intentions may even help deter such disruptions in the first place, by making clear that the executive branch has plans for continuing to operate in an orderly fashion, even if the full transfer of presidential authority is delayed. as for future elections, this analysis also points to other areas in need of work, specifically by congress. as a complement to the ecra, congress may wish to consider enacting supplemental legislation that clarifies some (if not all) of the various ambiguities surrounding how contingent elections are to be handled, thereby limiting opportunities for manipulation. the presidential succession act also warrants legislative attention, both to reduce any perverse incentives it may present and to avoid constitutional doubts that might compromise its operation. finally, if faced with an incumbent presidential administration that they believe might manipulate election outcomes in their favor, the senate may wish to be especially careful in regard to which nominees they support for the offices of attorney general and secretary of state the former because the attorney general is the person who will determine who the executive branch views as the lawful president (or acting president) while any litigation or other determinative proceedings are ongoing, and the latter because they may well become acting president under the line of succession as presently written. the 2024 election is poised to be a challenging one, both today and in the weeks to come. violence, misinformation, and allegations of misconduct may all be in the cards. but thanks to the actions of a bipartisan congress and the countless advocates who pushed them forward, the legal process for selecting a president is in a much better position to weather these challenges now than it was four years ago. whether it will stay this way in the future, however, depends on whether future policymakers will continue to support and reinforce it and whether the voters choose to elect officials who value democracy and the rule of law over their own empowerment. hard national security choices

domenico montanaro voters line up to cast their ballots at the stamford government center on the first day of early voting on oct. 21 in stamford, conn. john moore/getty images hide caption if the polls are to be believed, this presidential election is expected to be tight. but beneath the closeness of the head to head numbers, there have been some important shifts happening in american politics. below is a guide to the groups to pay closest attention to on election night that could tell the story of how   and why   former president donald trump or vice president harris wins. loading... the largest single voting group is white voters. republicans have been dominant with them in the last 20 years, but with the growing latino and asian american populations, white voters have been on a sharp decline as a share of the electorate since the 1990s. loading... because of that demographic change, former president barack obama was the first candidate to win a presidential election with less than 40% of the white vote in 2012. democrat hillary clinton lost in 2016 when she got 2 points lower (37%). biden won four years later and was above 40%. the october npr/pbs news/marist poll showed harris winning 45% of white voters. if that were to hold, it would be the highest share for a democrat since 1976. but harris still only had a 2 point lead over trump in the survey because of trump cutting into margins with black and latino voters. almost nothing now is a better predictor of how white voters will vote than whether or not they have a college degree. white voters with college degrees had long been reliable republican voters. but that changed between 2016 and 2020, when biden won them narrowly. polling suggests democrats’ advantage with them could balloon in this election. loading... in 2016, trump won the group in five of the seven swing states, but in 2020, president biden won them in six of seven. the opposite has been true with white voters who don’t have college degrees. they have been trending heavily toward republicans, and the trump team believes it can turn out even more of them this year, even though they are generally less likely to vote at all. white voters without degrees, many of whom live in rural areas, are declining as a share of eligible voters in the country. but in key states, they still make up a larger percentage of eligible voters than whites with degrees. that’s true, for example, in the blue wall states of wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania. in every one of the seven swing states, white non college voters made up a higher share of the electorate than in 2016. trump, though, won them by less in six of the seven swing states, except north carolina. it will be a tall task for harris to replicate biden’s inroads, but she has made that a critical piece of her strategy   losing by less. women have made up a majority of the electorate in every presidential election in the last 40 years. democrats won their largest share of women in 2020   57%, according to exit polls. democrats hope that number goes even higher this year, given the party’s intense focus on women’s reproductive rights, and the fact that this is the first general election since the overturning of roe v. wade. loading... pair that with trump’s apparent depth of support with men this year, the gender gap could be the widest in any presidential election ever. the last two elections showed very wide gaps   24 points in 2016, and 23 in 2020. the latest npr poll showed it was a whopping 34 points. but this isn’t strictly a men women divide. there are nuances within the groups by education and race. the education divide is very prominent here. the gap is widest with women who have a college degree and men who don’t. biden won college graduate white women by 9 points, while trump won white women without degrees by 27. trump won college graduate white men by 3 points, but won white, non college men 70% to 28%. by race, white women voted 11 points in favor of trump in 2020. black women, though, voted for biden by 81 points (that’s not a misprint). latinas also broke overwhelmingly for biden, too, 69% to 30%. there has been a lot made in this election of trump trying to siphon off young, black men from the democratic party. it’s tough to tell how real that is from pre election polling because of how large the margins of error are with subgroups in national polls. post election exit polls in heavily african american counties will give a better understanding of trump’s level of success with this group. in 2020, 87% of black voters sided with biden. that was down marginally from obama era levels, but on par with past democrats and high enough to win. but pre election polling suggests harris, who would be the first black woman to be president, could win them by the smallest margin of any democrat ever. the latest npr poll had her winning just 78% of black voters. loading... that’s an outcome democratic pollsters and strategists are skeptical of, but concerned about, and certainly something important to keep an eye on. black voters may be only 13% of the vote nationally, but they are crucial to democrats’ chances in the swing states, particularly in georgia, north carolina and michigan, which all have black eligible voter populations that are higher than the national average. latinos are the largest growing group in the country. they have increased as a share of the electorate in each of the last seven presidential elections and have increased substantially as a share of the electorate in each of the seven swing states. they could be particularly influential in arizona and nevada, where they made up about 1 in 5 voters in 2020. they are also notable portions of the voting populations in the other swing states. in north carolina, for example, they are nearly 8% of the eligible voter population, up four fold since 2008. in georgia, they are just over 7%, having doubled since 2008. loading... latinos have voted for the democratic presidential candidate in each of the last four presidential elections by at least a 2 to 1 margin. republicans came closest in 2004 when president george w. bush was running for reelection. the former texas governor embraced comprehensive immigration overhauls, but was blocked by members of congress in his own party. it’s been a similar story with every immigration push since. after receiving just 27% of the latino vote in 2012, the republican national committee called for changing the party’s approach on immigration. “[w]e must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” the rnc’s “growth & opportunity project” stated in 2013. “if we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.” trump went the opposite way. he demonized immigrants and juiced his base with a nativist and nationalistic message   similar to what has been successful for right wing strongmen in other countries in recent years. despite that approach, trump actually gained among latinos in 2020. biden won them in the seven most closely watched swing states, but by less than clinton did in 2016. loading... polls have shown trump doing better with the group in 2024, too, largely because of concerns about the economy, particularly prices and housing. so, while immigration may be a threshold issue for many, pocketbook issues matter, too. trump has taken note of that, and he’s also leaned into the idea that latinos who are here legally and eligible to vote came to the u.s. the “right” way. but incendiary comments by a comedian at a trump rally at madison square garden, calling puerto rico a “floating island of garbage,” threaten to hurt trump in places like pennsylvania. the harris campaign has been quick to point to this and other racist rhetoric as part of their argument for latinos to vote democratic. biden won latinos in pennsylvania by the widest margin of any of the swing states   and half of latinos in the state are of puerto rican descent, according to demographer william frey at the brookings institution. latinos were 5% of the electorate in the state in 2020. that’s not as high as some other key states, but in a very close election, the margins could matter. if latinos are the largest growing demographic group, asian americans are the fastest. and since 2008, they have voted overwhelmingly for democrats. they could have the biggest impact in nevada, where they are more than 9% of the eligible voter population. they were 5% of the electorate in the state in 2020 and went for biden by a 64% 35% margin. they could also be crucial in places like georgia. the aapi population in the state has grown by more than 50% since 2010. while only about 3% of eligible voters in georgia, there were more than 45,000 first time aapi voters in the state in 2020. they voted about 58% for democrats, a margin of more than 7,000 votes in democrats’ favor   just from first time aapi voters, almost the margin that decided the state. loading... when democrats win, young voters turn out. in 2008, 2012 and 2020, democrats won 60% or more of voters 18 to 29 years old and won. in 2016, just 55% of them voted for clinton. harris has also been lagging with the group in pre election polling. this is a group that turns out at lower rates than others, and polls have indicated that they are among the least likely to say they are definitely voting in this election. loading... drilling down into the states, one place to spotlight is north carolina. if harris is going to win there, she will need a big margin with young voters. consider the shift in democratic support over time for young voters vs. black voters, for example. in 2008, obama won 95% of black voters, and they were 23% of the electorate. in 2020, biden won 92% and they were the same share of the electorate, according to exit polls. that’s not a huge difference. but voters 18 29 years old broke for obama by almost 50 points compared to just 17 for biden. they also turned out at a 3 percentage point higher share of the electorate in 2008 compared to 2020. harris could be the first democrat since former vice president al gore’s bid in 2000 to win voters 65 and older. that’s important, especially in a potentially close election, because seniors and white voters with degrees are among the highest propensity voters. she will need them to turn out at high rates to offset trump’s strength with white, non college voters. loading... democrats have dominated with union voters over the years. that helped insulate them in the blue wall states of wisconsin and michigan, which have high concentrations of white, working class voters. but union voters are also important in nevada, where the culinary union is important, and it has a high concentration of working class latinos. roughly 1 in 5 voters have said they live in a union household over the last two election cycles in those three states, and biden significantly improved over clinton’s margins. clinton lost all three blue wall states to trump in 2016. trump is threatening to cut into those margins again because of his strength with white voters without degrees. something else to keep an eye on, though: union voters are changing. they’re becoming younger and more white collar   and not entirely the stereotype of white, male working class voters of the 1960s. the suburbs have shifted toward democrats, and trump has increased republicans’ advantage in rural areas. biden won the suburbs narrowly in 2020, and he won the election, as did obama in 2008. obama was close enough in 2012 to win a second term. clinton, though, fell off in those areas in 2016, and trump won the election. this time around, pre election polling has shown harris doing even better than biden in the suburbs. that’s likely going to have to hold for her to have a chance of winning. loading... despite rural voters making up a larger share of the electorate in 2020 than 2016, biden also cut into trump’s margins with rural voters, something harris wants to do again. but if trump blows out those margins, that could be a major reason why he becomes the 47th president. graphics reporter connie hanzhang jin contributed to this report. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

republican donald trump is preparing to select his top team ahead of his return to the white house, after a decisive election victory. his defeated opponent, democrat kamala harris, vowed to support a "peaceful transfer of power". the 2024 election was on tuesday, 5 november 2024. ahead of election day, some tens of millions of people took part in early voting events or sent their ballots by post. tens of millions more voted on election day itself. the winner will serve a term of four years in the white house, starting in january 2025. on the world stage, the us leader has considerable freedom to represent the country abroad. within the us, the president works with the two branches of the us congress to pass legislation. they can also issue executive orders, which can direct the operations of the federal government, or clarify and extend existing laws. the president also has the power to issue pardons for federal crimes. former president trump stood for the republican party. he won the party's support with a massive lead over his rivals. trump chose ohio senator jd vance to be his vice presidential running mate. kamala harris, the current vice president under the outgoing president, joe biden, was the candidate for the democratic party. she joined the race after biden dropped out and no other democrats stood against her. her running mate for vice president was minnesota governor tim walz. there were also some independent candidates running for president. one of the most prominent was robert f kennedy jr, but he suspended his campaign in august and backed trump. the period after the election is known as the transition, which gives the new administration time to appoint cabinet ministers and make plans for the new term. trump becomes the president elect, vance the vice president elect. at his victory rally, trump hinted kennedy   a former democrat and vaccine sceptic   would be given a key healthcare role. technology billionaire elon musk is also expected to feature in the new administration. trump previously said he would ask mr musk to tackle government waste. trump will be sworn in at a ceremony known as the inauguration, held on the steps of the capitol building in washington dc on monday 20 january 2025. at that point, he legally assumes the power and responsibilities of the presidency. the democrats, who use blue as their colour, are the liberal political party. they are known for supporting civil rights, a social safety net and measures to address climate change. in the 2024 election, issues highlighted by their candidate kamala harris included tackling the cost of living crisis and supporting abortion rights. the republicans use the colour red and are the conservative political party. they have stood for lower taxes, shrinking the size of the government and gun rights. issues that their candidate donald trump campaigned on included tackling illegal immigration and ending inflation to "make america affordable again". the winner is not the person who gets the most votes overall. instead, both candidates compete to win contests held across the 50 individual states. each state has a certain number of so called electoral college votes, partly based on population. there are a total of 538 up for grabs and the winner is the candidate that gets 270 or more. a tie is possible, but unlikely. all but two states have a winner takes all rule, so whichever candidate has the highest number of votes is awarded all of its electoral college votes. most states lean heavily towards one party or the other, so the focus is on about seven states where either of them could win. these are known as the battleground or swing states. it is possible for a candidate to win the most votes nationally   as the democratic candidate hillary clinton did in 2016   but still be defeated. most us citizens aged 18 or over were eligible to vote. each state has its own voter registration process and deadline. us citizens who live abroad could register and request an absentee postal ballot. most of the attention is on who wins the presidency, but voters were also choosing new members of congress   where laws are passed. congress consists of the house of representatives, where all 435 seats were up for election, and the senate, where 34 seats were being contested. these two chambers pass laws and can act as a check on white house plans if the controlling party in either chamber disagrees with the president. republicans have retaken control of the us senate, which votes on key appointments in government. they also lead the contest to control the house of representatives, which initiates spending plans, but it could take days for the final result to be confirmed. aged just 10 when his father first became president, he's now well over six feet tall, and goes to new york university. the us president spoke about his plans for the second trump administration, as well as criticising the 'corrupt establishment'. watch the historic moment when the 45th president is returned to power as he takes the oath of office. elon musk, mark zuckerberg and jeff bezos were among those invited inside the capitol for donald trump's swearing in. thousands of people joined in on demonstrations as the united states prepares to inaugurate its new president. the outgoing us president warned against power in the hands of the wealthy, the threat of the tech industry and climate change. trump's pick for us attorney general was pressed on claims of election fraud and pardons for january 6 rioters. donald trump's defence secretary nominee was asked about his stance on women in combat and his alleged excessive drinking. harris, who trump defeated in the 2024 election, presided over the event as required by the us constitution. among the allies the president elect has chosen to join his administration are contentious figures, including among fellow republicans. the president elect has nominated rfk to lead the department of health and human services. the suspect used an “improvised incendiary device” to start the fire in portland, oregon, ahead of the us election. a week after losing the election, kamala harris's team are still appealing for funds. republicans have won control of both chambers of congress, yielding trump limited congressional oversight for at least 2 years. the president and president elect shook hands as part of a long standing tradition signifying the transfer of power. given all the things they’ve said about each other, joe biden and donald trump’s meeting could be really awkward. 'i think putin believes that he knows how to play trump', says trump's former adviser john bolton. the russian president says he was impressed by trump's reaction to the first assassination attempt against him. the president addressed americans from the white house for the first time since donald trump's election victory. after donald trump's decisive victory, we asked americans what they think made the difference for each campaign. elon musk's work to shrink the us government is being met with outrage from democrats and aid groups. the full senate voted in the evening, approving bondi as the next attorney general, tasked with running the department of justice. a conservative think tank set out a sweeping vision for governing that could influence trump's next term. what influence has it had so far? trump claims more taxes on trade wouldn't be a cost to the us   but almost all economists dispute this. the republican has started his second term at a fast pace. here's a handy guide to what he's done so far. copyright 2025 bbc. all rights reserved. the bbc is not responsible for the content of external sites. read about our approach to external linking.

vp kamala harris and former president donald trump remain locked in a dead heat in national and battleground state polls. candidates have been flooding the philadelphia region this campaign season, showcasing the importance of battleground pennsylvania. vice president kamala harris and former president donald trump remain locked in a dead heat in national and battleground state polls, with all eyes on who will clinch the electoral college. live election 2024 updates in the philadelphia region and the focus on pennsylvania here is what to know about the process before election day. as laid out in article ii of the constitution, the president of the united states is elected by the electoral college    not the popular vote. see also: 2024 election: maps show where presidential race and senate, house balance of power standunder the system, each state is allocated a number of electoral votes determined by the size of its congressional delegation. the states with the largest number of electoral votes include california (54) and texas (40). experts said the founders debated who should be trusted to choose the nation's leader, with some urging congress or state legislatures to decide and others advocating for a more democratic vote. "when they designed our system, they came up with the electoral college not because they thought it was perfect but as a way to get the constitution passed, and it satisfied the concerns of both the very populous states and lower populous states," rachael cobb, a political science professor at suffolk university, told abc news. though it's not a direct election of the president, they noted. "it's really 51 separate elections," barry burden, the director of the elections research center at the university of wisconsin madison, told abc news. "every state and the district of columbia has its own rules for running the election. then each state awards its electors separately, and it's up to candidates to win a majority of those electors to be elected president." to win the presidential election, a candidate needs to capture 270 of the 538 total electoral votes. related: how ballots get from pennsylvania precincts to election offices many states have a winner takes all approach, meaning that whichever candidate wins the most votes statewide receives all its electoral votes. two states, however, split their electoral votes: nebraska allocates three of its five electoral votes by district and maine allocates two of its four votes by district. electors are usually selected by the state's political parties. while the constitution doesn't bind electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, many legislatures have laws in place to prevent an elector from rogue    or what's called a "faithless elector." in 2020, some republican allies of trump tried to submit fake slates of electors to congress to undermine president joe biden's victory. several people were prosecuted for their role in the scheme. polls ahead of election day show a razor thin race between harris and trump. it will likely all come down to just a handful of swing states: arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, north carolina, pennsylvania and wisconsin. some of those states were decided by just 10,000 to 20,000 votes in 2020, and the margins are expected to be just as close in 2024. pennsylvania is considered crucial to the outcome of the race, as it boasts the most electoral votes (19) of any of the battlegrounds. the state cemented president joe biden's victory in 2020, flipping blue after going red for trump in 2016. voter guide 2024: pennsylvania, new jersey, delaware if harris wins pennsylvania along with michigan, wisconsin and a single electoral vote in nebraska (all of which biden won in 2020) she would reach 270 electoral votes even if she were to lose the remaining four swing states. if trump wins pennsylvania, and holds all the states he won in 2020, he would need to also flip georgia to win. a 269 269 tie is not outside the realm of possibility, though it's unlikely. it's happened only once under the current rules of the electoral college: the 1824 presidential election. in that case, as the constitution requires, congress carried out a "contingent election" to decide the winner. a contingent election requires the house of representatives to select the winner, with each state having one vote. a candidate would need support from 26 of the 50 states to be elected. 538 has analyzed the different scenarios in which a tie could result between vice president harris and former president trump. cobb called the possibility of a tie a "real concern" this year and explained what would likely happen next. "the house of representatives is controlled by republicans and so the likely outcome in this election, should it be a tie and should it go to the house of representatives, is that the republican nominee would win," cobb said. "it's a symbolic victory to win the popular vote, but it's not required," burden said. "and twice in the last five elections, we've seen the popular vote go one direction and the electoral college go the other. that could well happen this time as well." candidates who lost the popular vote but won the electoral college are john quincy adams in 1824, rutherford b. hayes in 1876, benjamin harrison in 1888, george w. bush in 2000 and trump in 2016. after the 2016 election, when hillary clinton eclipsed trump in the popular vote by nearly 3 million but lost the electoral college, debate sparked about whether the system should change. those in favor of the electoral college generally note its written into the nation's founding document and has largely worked since then. "many aspects of the constitution have not been changed since 1789 and are still in place. the electoral college is still mostly operating the way it was originally intended. so why mess with success?" burden said. burden and cobb noted it also forces campaigns to focus on traveling from state to state to meet voters. without the need to win electors, presidential contenders would instead likely run a more nationalized campaign and focus on highly populated cities while ignoring smaller, rural communities. the main reasoning against the electoral college is that it means not every vote is equal, as a handful of key swing states usually determine the winner of an election. "another argument is that, essentially, it has disproportionate influence," cobb said. "that smaller states have a disproportionately higher number of electoral votes relative to their population, meaning that individual votes in these states carry more weight than in those larger states." "the one person, one vote idea has really taken hold in the united states over time, and the electoral college does not meet that," said burden. "votes are unequal. some voters matter a lot more, and others matter less. and that's inconsistent with really every other kind of election in the united states." abc news contributed to this report.

by npr staff just a handful of states will decide the 2024 presidential election. npr’s morning edition and all things considered visited seven of them to speak to voters and explore the issues that matter most to them   and gauge how these states are likely to swing in 2024. loading... » listen on morning edition // find your local station « » listen on all things considered // find your local station « week of sept. 16when president joe biden narrowly won georgia, he was the first candidate at the top of the democratic ticket to do so since 1992. the harris walz campaign is pushing hard to win it again, while the gop is mobilizing to win over essential voting blocs in areas like metro atlanta. without the 16 electoral college votes from this key state   which also became the focus of false election fraud claims   former president donald trump’s path to victory in 2024 narrows significantly. latosha brown at the black voters matter office on sept. 16, 2024. lynsey weatherspoon for npr hide caption latosha brown says she is frightened the election results in georgia won't be certified quickly due to new rule changes. tk nydia blas for npr hide caption all things considered host mary louise kelly sits down with georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger ahead of the 2024 presidential election. stickers sit on a table at a polling location on nov. 8, 2022 in atlanta, georgia. megan varner/getty images hide caption georgia is again seen as a must win for both vice president harris and former president donald trump. voters are inundated by political advertising and bombarded with visits from campaign surrogates. georgia republican party chair josh mckoon poses for a portrait in atlanta. nydia blas for npr hide caption npr's mary louise kelly talks with georgia republican party chair josh mckoon in atlanta ahead of the 2024 presidential election. latrice cushenberry, eustacia mccloud carter and donna smith aranson pose for a portrait at cafe intermezzo in atlanta, georgia. sept. 18, 2024. nydia blas for npr hide caption npr's mary louise kelly talks with three women, all democrats, about kamala harris' historic candidacy and why they plan on voting for her. week of sept. 23though a much smaller slice of the electoral college pie with six votes, the southwestern state could prove key as election day nears. unlike rust belt states in the midwest, nevada has significantly larger non white populations. about 40% of the state’s eligible voters are latino, black, or asian american pacific islanders   all groups from whom harris draws more support than trump. however, concerns about costs of living, inflation and immigration could give the former president an edge. lauren tuvell and james watts with their dogs xena and desi (left to right) at their home in downtown las vegas on sept.24, 2024. krystal ramirez for npr hide caption as part of npr’s "we, the voters" series, we went to nevada to talk to residents about their housing situation, the state’s affordable housing crisis and what factors are driving it. folks enjoy the rides at the pahrump fall festival in pahrump, nevada on sept. 21, 2024. krystal ramirez for npr hide caption a festival and rodeo in pahrump, nevada, offers a glimpse into rural voters in the battleground state and how they could impact the election. sen. catherine cortez masto, d nev., speaks during the democratic national convention wednesday, aug. 21, 2024, in chicago. erin hooley/ap hide caption morning edition spoke to nevada sen. catherine cortez masto, who worked with vp harris when the two were state attorneys general, on why that experience is relevant to being commander in chief. the arts district in las vegas, nevada on sept.18, 2024 krystal ramirez for npr hide caption nevada could be a tipping point for the 2024 presidential election. here’s what could convince voters to go to the polls and vote for either vp harris or former president donald trump. week of sept. 30wisconsin is, as the state democratic party chair puts it, “the land of the nail biter.” the presidential vote has been decided by less than 1% in nearly every election this century. and when 20,000 votes can tip a state of almost 6 million people, any group of voters could make the difference. vice president kamala harris is hoping wisconsin will help her restore the democrats’ “blue wall,” while former president donald trump aims to tear it down as he did in 2016. left: barb biggler spends an afternoon door knocking in walworth county to campaign for vice president harris. right: hilario deleon is the chairman of the republican party of milwaukee county. keren carrión/npr hide caption this year, democrats and republicans are trying to minimize the losses they felt in counties in 2020. the milwaukee running group   omg meets up on a rainy morning in milwaukee recently. keren carrión/npr hide caption a team from npr speaks with voters along a 15 mile road that cuts through the milwaukee area's segregated neighborhoods as election season continues in this crucial swing state. janine collette is catching up with an old friend at the packing house. keren carrión/npr hide caption customers and staff at a wisconsin supper club share their thoughts on the upcoming election. a man lowers his head in reverence sunday, sept. 22, 2024, at the sikh temple of wisconsin in oak creek, wis. angela major/wisconsin public radio hide caption npr visits the sikh temple of wisconsin in oak creek, where a white supremacist mass shooting took place 12 years ago. madison, wi   november 08: a voter casts their ballot at the hillel foundation on november 8, 2022 in madison, wisconsin. after months of candidates campaigning, americans are voting in the midterm elections to decide close races across the nation. (photo by jim vondruska/getty images) jim vondruska/getty images hide caption voters talk about what’s keeping them up at night when they think of politics and the november election. packers fans heather gunnlaugsson, left, and tim mahoney, right, dance as the packer tailgate band plays “roll out the barrel” on sunday, sept. 29, before the packers’ game against the minnesota vikings in green bay, wis. angela major/wisconsin public radio hide caption wisconsin has long been a presidential swing state, but thanks to new maps, it's now also a potential swing state for the legislature for the first time in 15 years. week of oct. 7michigan voted reliably democratic for decades until trump won the republican nomination in 2016. he delivered a major upset to then democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton’s campaign and carried the state, due largely to his appeal to white working class voters. the state with 15 electoral votes is more diverse than others in the “blue wall” that are in play, which could favor harris. but she has work to do with the state’s large arab american population and other young voters who have continually expressed disappointment at the biden administration's handling of the war in gaza. people gather for the america first republicans meeting, a group of republicans aligned with the trump wing of the party on oct. 3, 2024 in hillsdale, mich. sylvia jarrus for npr hide caption election workers faced an unprecedented wave of threats in the last presidential election. what are poll workers and election clerks in the swing state of michigan doing to keep voting secure? a trump and harris sign side by side in a neighborhood on oct. 3, 2024 in hillsdale, mich. sylvia jarrus for npr hide caption vice president harris needs to win back michigan voters president biden looked poised to lose. donald trump’s appeal remains strong here, but he’s not without his own struggles. a man votes in the 2022 midterm election. bill pugliano/getty images hide caption npr's throughline explores how a 1973 labor strike led by arab americans in a michigan factory town sparked a political movement that could play a major role in the 2024 election. week of oct. 14in recent history, arizona has often supported republican presidential candidates, including former president donald trump in 2016. but in 2020, joe biden flipped the state by a narrow margin. now arizona’s 11 electoral votes are up for grabs again. both trump and vice president kamala harris have campaigned in the state, appealing to voters with messages focused on big national issues like the economy, immigration and abortion. how will those issues play out for an increasingly diverse and rapidly growing population? raquel and rebeca salas at their home in phoenix, az, on oct. 6, 2024. keren carrión/npr hide caption arizona has seen rising support for abortion rights among latinos. the reasons are varied and complicated. kevin jackson poses for a portrait in his vendor booth at the phoenix indian center’s gourd dance and social powwow in the steele indian school park in phoenix, ariz., on oct. 12, 2024. ash ponders for npr hide caption both republicans and democrats are trying to marshal native american voters in arizona, which could prove decisive to winning the key state. maria barquin says la campesina aims to uplift latinos and show the value of their involvement in politics. caitlin o'hara/for npr hide caption radio campesina has a big goal this year: combat misinformation about elections among arizona latinos. phoenix, arizona   october 11: ballot drop off instructions are displayed near the entrance of the maricopa county elections department on october 11, 2024 in phoenix, arizona. early voting is underway in the state of arizona ahead of the november 5th elections. (photo by brandon bell/getty images) brandon bell/getty images hide caption a church and a community college are stepping up to serve as voting locations after others pulled out due to security threats. a man votes in the 2022 midterm election. bill pugliano/getty images hide caption npr's throughline explores how a future supreme court justice helped launch a program to challenge voters at the arizona polls in the early 1960s, in a county that's become a hotbed for election conspiracies in the decades since. week of oct. 21with 19 electoral college votes   the most of any of the swing states   the keystone state is arguably the main focus for both campaigns. the commonwealth voted reliably for the democratic presidential nominee from 1992 until 2012. but former president donald trump’s populist message during the 2016 election season landed with many white working class voters without college degrees. they make up about half of the state’s eligible voting population, and trump continues to appeal to them. high turnout in pennsylvania’s population centers   pittsburgh and philadelphia   could tip the state toward harris. braddock, pa., on oct. 16, 2024. nate smallwood for npr hide caption two morning edition teams drove hundreds of miles around the state to gauge how residents in this critical swing state feel about vp harris and former president donald trump. here’s what they told us. mary mellinger, 61, left, and her husband, andrew mellinger, 63, stand together for a portrait with their goats on their farm in ronks, pa, on friday october 18 2024. hannah yoon for npr hide caption on a visit to a sprawling history rich farmer's market and a family farm, npr asks people with agricultural and rural interests, what's on your mind as you cast your vote? pennsylvania secretary of the commonwealth al schmidt, participates in an election forum, sept. 19, in ann arbor, mich. carlos osorio/ap hide caption npr's michel martin speaks with pennsylvania's top elections official, al schmidt, about how the commonwealth is preparing for the election day vote count. u.s. steel edgar thomson works is seen in braddock, pa., on oct. 16, 2024. nate smallwood for npr hide caption braddock, pennsylvania lost most of its population over the past almost 100 years, due largely to u.s. steel's decline. here's how some locals feel about the company's potential sale to the japanese. houses across the monongahela river are seen from braddock, pa., on oct. 16, 2024. nate smallwood for npr hide caption vice president harris and former president donald trump are in a tight race in pennsylvania. the state could go either way and it’s why both candidates are working so hard to appeal to voters. week of oct. 21north carolina has been in republican hands in presidential elections for the better part of the last half century, with the exception of barack obama carrying the state during his first run. but a changing population means that the republican party's dominance is no longer a given: rapid growth in the research triangle has yielded an increase in white, college educated voters; a sharp rise in the latino and asian american population; and about 1 in 5 voters is black. since 2008, the state has been decided, on average, by less than 2 points. north carolina state fair. andrea ellen reed for npr hide caption with less than two weeks until election day, the races looms over the state fair in north carolina, where voters are expressing both apathy and anxiety over their top issues and the candidates. pastor chad harvey. andrea ellen reed for npr hide caption scott detrow speaks to pastor chad harvey of cross assembly church on where his support stands for lt. gov. mark robinson, who once spoke at his church, and former president donald trump canvassers, andrea farmer and alex cook, mark off homes they have visited on their app while canvassing in a neighbor in nashville, nc on oct. 22, 2024. andrea ellen reed for npr hide caption north carolina has more rural voters than any other 2024 presidential swing state, and canvassing groups are working to turn out voters in one purple county as early voting continues in the state.

when news breaks, you need to understand what matters   and what to do about it. at vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. but we can’t do it on our own. we rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. will you support our work and become a vox member today? will any of the demographic narratives about 2024 come true? by christian paz the 2024 election cycle has produced some stunning and sometimes counterintuitive narratives about how demographic subgroups might end up voting. we may just see a historic gulf in the way men and women vote   or not. polls suggest we’re in for the greatest racial realignment since the civil rights act was passed   or it could be a mirage. young people might sit out the election because they’re disillusioned and vote for a third party   or they could turn out in record numbers for kamala harris. the more diverse sun belt states might pave the way for a donald trump victory   but the predominantly older and whiter “blue wall” states might elect the first black woman president. the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat   and a closer look at where they should go next. from senior correspondent eric levitz. we’ll know soon enough. though election day is mere days away, at least 60 million people have already voted. battleground states are hitting or exceeding their records for early voting. and with polls of likely voters still showing an evenly tied race, any combination of factors, events, or movements within the electorate could swing the outcome. to that end, i’ve assembled a handful of questions we at vox have been tracking for the last year. their eventual answers could determine who wins the white house. the story of the closing weeks of the 2024 election has been a scramble for undecided voters, a shrinking number in poll after poll. that share includes two groups: voters who are undecided between either candidate and voters who might have a preference but are undecided about voting at all. we don’t exactly know who these late deciders are, though. could they be the same kind of working class and non college educated (primarily white) voters who boosted trump to victory in rust belt states in 2016 (thus scrambling the polls)? or are they going to be the scores of new and young (primarily nonwhite) voters who could give harris an edge in sun belt states? and for all these subgroups   what kind of message or campaign development might get them to vote that hasn’t persuaded them already? could harris’s late in the game revival of democracy and trump’s authoritarian bend resonate with them? is something like the racist and extreme rhetoric at trump’s madison square garden rally a factor that could make up their minds? or is something like president joe biden’s “garbage” gaffe this week something that could juice more trump support? regardless, these late deciders will be pivotal. they’ve broken for trump by massive margins in each of the last two elections he’s been a part of. but things might be different this third time. along those lines, harris’s fate of democracy appeal and juxtaposition of her “to do” list against trump’s “enemies” list are the clearest examples of how the democrat’s campaign has zeroed in on trump skeptical republicans as a key part of preventing a trump win. but will these registered republicans cross party lines, or simply repeat as reluctant trump voters? somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of republican primary voters did not vote for trump, and even after she dropped out, large shares of these voters opted to vote for former south carolina gov. nikki haley. many of them are women, which explains part of the focus harris has put on touting republican endorsers like former gop rep. liz cheney, her father and former vice president dick cheney, and scores of former never trump republican politicians. partisanship is one hell of a drug, however. republicans, even if they dislike trump personally, routinely stick with their party’s nominee. harris keeps asking these trump wary republicans to put “country over party.” but if they don’t and harris’s argument about trump’s threat to democracy is right, they may have to throw a “country over” party. the gaza war, and israel’s treatment of palestinians, has been one of the defining issues of the last year, including in the electoral realm. biden’s handling and response drove a significant amount of dissatisfaction from more progressive and left leaning members of the democratic coalition, and that antipathy seems to have stuck around, to a lesser degree, toward harris. that includes a voting group influential in a pivotal swing state: arab american voters in michigan. polls specifically of arab americans suggest that these voters will not turn out for harris to the same degree that they boosted democratic candidates in the past: an arab news yougov poll this week found trump leading harris among arab americans 45 to 43. that’s a stark reversal from 2020, when biden led trump by 24 points, and especially 2016, when hillary clinton led trump by 34 points. but this wasn’t always the case. before 9/11, arab american voters leaned republican. only after the gop’s anti muslim and anti arab turn during the george w. bush years did this voting segment swing toward democrats, reaching a high point in 2004. and since that high point, these voters have been trending toward the gop, with the share supporting john mccain, mitt romney, and trump growing from 2008 to 2012 and into 2020 (support dipped slightly in 2016). the gaza war may be accelerating a latent rightward shift that was already happening as the gop changed its foreign policy priorities, championed conservative culture war issues, and talked up economic populism as democrats became more culturally progressive, including on issues of gender and sexuality. for much of the last year, the trump campaign has played up its targeted outreach to a specific segment of the electorate: black men. with an avalanche of digital advertising aimed at younger black men, and deployment of surrogates and outside groups to reach young black voters, the campaign has hoped to exploit two dynamics: harris’s apparent weakness with black men, and an overarching vulnerability democrats have with younger black americans. traditional polling suggests harris has been facing a challenge in hitting the same margin of support that past democratic candidates have enjoyed among black voters, and specifically black men. both social and economic reasons explain this, including former president barack obama’s theory that a degree of misogyny is keeping some black men from supporting a black woman. but there is also a larger democratic weakness, based on surveys finding that younger black voters specifically may have weaker ties to the party than older cohorts of black voters, and may be more conservative than their elders. and young black men appear more likely this year to support trump, perhaps as a product of that weaker bond. but this is also among the cohort of voters least likely to vote and which, some polling suggests, is consolidating for harris as they tune into the election. and with more outright racist remarks and prejudiced speech being deployed by trump and his supporters in the final weeks of the campaign, it’s not clear that this investment will materialize large enough gains on election day to swing races in battleground states. whether latino voters are shifting toward the republican party since the start of the trump years isn’t really contestable. trump’s gains in 2020 stuck around for republican candidates during the 2022 midterms, and polls suggest he will, at the very least, hang on to much of the support in a week. but because the election is decided by the electoral college and not the popular vote, the more interesting question is whether those gains will stick around or grow in the states that matter. in 2020, much of the political media was captivated by the massive inroads trump made in south florida and south texas, places that had given democrats an advantage in latino support for years. but trump’s hispanic gains also happened across the country, in primarily immigrant communities, and in both democratic and republican strongholds that don’t necessarily impact the results of the electoral college map. this year, it appears that states that are already likely to solidly back trump or harris might see their latino populations continue shifting to the right (as is most obvious in florida), even as latino voters in swing states like arizona, nevada, and pennsylvania, according to polling, buck that trend and move toward democrats (or at least keep democratic margins from 2020 intact). that could result in trump making larger national inroads among latinos, but not enough in swing states to boost him in the presidential races that matter. it would make for more evidence of an ongoing racial realignment between parties, but one driven by hispanic and latino voters in california, new york, and texas. that has real implications for control of congress, but, unless the latinos switching their party affiliations are in swing states, it won’t affect who wins the white house. the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat   and a closer look at where they should go next. from senior correspondent eric levitz. the organizations dedicated to mobilizing gen z got the turnout they wanted, but not the votes. what did they miss? ﻿the constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born in the us. trump wants to take that away. a democratic data expert’s autopsy of the 2024 election perpetuates a comforting fiction. allison riggs won the seat by 734 votes, but her opponent is trying to invalidate 60,000. how a consolation prize for unions might screw everyone over   them included. it wasn’t the easiest year, but 2024 was not without its bright spots. © 2025 vox media, llc. all rights reserved

numbers, facts and trends shaping your world read our research on: full topic list read our research on: | as concerns around the state of the economy and inflation continue, about eight in ten registered voters (81%) say the economy will be very important to their vote in the 2024 presidential election. while the economy is the top issue among voters, a large majority (69%) cite at least five of the 10 issues asked about in the survey as very important to their vote. there are wide differences between voters who support harris and trump when it comes to the issues. among trump supporters, the economy (93%), immigration (82%) and violent crime (76%) are the leading issues. just 18% of trump supporters say racial and ethnic inequality is very important. and even fewer say climate change is very important (11%). for harris supporters, issues such as health care (76%) and supreme court appointments (73%) are of top importance. large majorities also cite the economy (68%) and abortion (67%) as very important to their vote in the election. most voters cite several issues as very important to their vote this november. very few   just 5%   say only one issue or no issues are highly important. majorities of both harris supporters (71%) and trump supporters (69%) say at least five of 10 issues included in the survey are very important to their vote. harris supporters are more likely than trump supporters to say most of the issues included are very important. about a third of harris supporters (32%) say at least eight of 10 issues are very important, compared with 17% of trump supporters. while the economy has long been a top issue for voters   and continues to be one today   other issues have become increasingly important for voters over the past four years. about six in ten voters (61%) today say immigration is very important to their vote   a 9 percentage point increase from the 2020 presidential election and 13 points higher than during the 2022 congressional elections. immigration is now a much more important issue for republican voters in particular: 82% of trump supporters say it is very important to their vote in the 2024 election, up 21 points from 2020. about four in ten harris supporters (39%) say immigration is very important to their vote. this is 8 points higher than the share of democratic congressional supporters who said this in 2022, but lower than the 46% of biden supporters who cited immigration as very important four years ago. in august 2020, fewer than half of voters (40%) said abortion was a very important issue to their vote. at the time, trump voters (46%) were more likely than biden voters (35%) to say it mattered a great deal. following the supreme court’s decision to overturn roe v. wade, opinions about abortion’s importance as a voting issue shifted. today, 67% of harris supporters call the issue very important   nearly double the share of biden voters who said this four years ago, though somewhat lower than the share of midterm democratic voters who said this in 2022 (74%). and about a third of trump supporters (35%) now say abortion is very important to their vote   11 points lower than in 2020. voters have more confidence in trump than harris on economic, immigration and foreign policies. half or more voters say they are at least somewhat confident in trump to make good decisions in these areas, while smaller shares (45% each) say this about harris. in contrast, voters have more confidence in harris than trump to make good decisions about abortion policy and to effectively address issues around race. just over half of voters have confidence in harris on these issues, while 44% have confidence in trump on these issues. trump holds a slight edge over harris for handling law enforcement and criminal justice issues (51% trump, 47% harris). voters are equally confident in harris and trump to select good nominees for the supreme court (50% each). fewer than half of voters say they are very or somewhat confident in either candidate to bring the country closer together (41% are confident in harris, 36% in trump). and voters express relatively little confidence in trump (37%) or harris (32%) to reduce the influence of money in politics. since biden dropped out of the presidential race in july, there has been movement on how confident voters are in the candidates to address issues facing the country. in july, 48% of voters were confident in biden to make good decisions about abortion policy. today, 55% of voters are confident in harris to do the same. harris currently has an 11 point advantage over trump on voters’ confidence to handle abortion policy decisions. voters also express more confidence in harris to make wise decisions about immigration policy than they did for biden before he withdrew from the race. today, 45% are confident in harris on this issue; in july, 35% said this about biden. while trump’s advantage over harris on immigration policy is less pronounced than it was over biden, he continues to hold a 7 point edge. voters are as confident in his ability to make wise decisions about immigration policy as they were in july (52%). harris has also improved over biden in voters’ confidence to make good decisions about foreign and economic policies. currently, 45% of voters are confident in harris on each of these issues. in july, 39% had confidence in biden to make good foreign policy decisions, while a similar share (40%) had confidence in him on economic policy. trump holds an edge over harris on both of these issues, though both are somewhat narrower than the advantage he had over biden on these issues in july. fresh data delivery saturday mornings weekly updates on the world of news & information topics 901 e st. nw, suite 300washington, dc 20004usa(+1) 202 419 4300 | main(+1) 202 857 8562 | fax(+1) 202 419 4372 | media inquiries about pew research center pew research center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. it does not take policy positions. the center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data driven research. pew research center is a subsidiary of the pew charitable trusts, its primary funder. © 2025 pew research center

about 240 million people are eligible to vote in the 2024 us election, but only a relatively small number of them are likely to decide who becomes the next president. experts believe there are only a handful of so called "swing" states that could plausibly be won by either democrat kamala harris or republican donald trump. seven of these   arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, north carolina, pennsylvania and wisconsin   are thought to hold the keys to the white house. both campaigns have therefore been targeting undecided voters in these states. the democrats gained the presidency in 2020 with the support of the grand canyon state, which narrowly voted to back the party's candidate for the first time since the 1990s. arizona borders mexico for hundreds of miles, and has become a focal point of the nation’s immigration debate, although the number of border crossings has dropped back in recent months from record highs. trump has repeatedly attacked harris’s record on immigration, because she was given a role by president joe biden to try and ease the border crisis. he has also vowed to carry out “the largest deportation operation” in us history if he regains the presidency. arizona has also hosted a bitter row over abortion access, after state republicans tried unsuccessfully to reinstate a 160 year old near total ban on terminating pregnancies. the issue has become even more polarising since 2022 when the us supreme court overturned a landmark ruling that gave women a constitutional right to abortion. our list of key swing states closely matches the list of places where trump backed republican officials tried to thwart president biden’s win in the 2020 election. in georgia's fulton county, alleged election interference has landed trump in one of his four criminal prosecutions (trump has been convicted in one case, while the remaining are ongoing). he and 18 others are accused of conspiring to overturn his narrow defeat to biden in the state. trump denies any wrongdoing, and the case will not be heard in court before the election. a third of georgia's population is african american   one of the largest proportions of black residents in the us   and it is believed that this demographic was instrumental in biden flipping the state for the democrats in 2020. some disillusionment with biden had been reported among america’s black voters, but the harris campaign hopes to gain their support. the great lakes state has picked the winning presidential candidate in the last two elections. despite backing biden in 2020, it has become symbolic of a nationwide backlash over the president’s support for israel during that country’s war in gaza. during michigan’s democratic primary contest in february, more than 100,000 voters chose the “uncommitted” option on their ballots, part of a campaign mounted by activists who want the us government to halt its military aid to israel. notably, michigan has the country’s largest proportion of arab americans   a demographic whose support for biden was in jeopardy. but harris has taken a harder tone on israel, and some gaza protesters have told the bbc they hope she will be more sympathetic to their cause. trump has highlighted the state’s significance in his potential path to victory. commenting on events in the middle east, he called on israel to finish its campaign over hamas in gaza, but "get it over with fast”. the silver state has voted democrat for the last several elections, but there are signs of a possible turnaround by the republicans. trump had enjoyed a wide lead over biden in earlier polls, but recent averages published by poll tracking firm 538 indicate that advantage has shrunk since harris gained the nomination. democrats had hoped a candidate with greater appeal to younger and more diverse voters would close the gap. both candidates are vying to win the state’s sizeable latino population. despite the fact that the us economy has shown strong growth and jobs creation since biden took the presidency, the post covid recovery has been slower in nevada than elsewhere. at 5.1%, the state has the third highest unemployment rate in the country, after california and the district of columbia, according to the latest us government statistics. if trump comes to power again, he has vowed a return to an agenda of lower taxes across the board, and fewer regulations which could appeal to voters. polls appear to have tightened in the tar heel state since harris took her place at the top of the democratic ticket, and some analysts now call it a "toss up". that may have explained trump's decision to hold his first outdoor rally there after the attempt on his life in july. “this state is a very, very big state to win," he told the crowd. for their part, the democrats decided to give a platform to the state's governor, roy cooper, on the final night of their party convention. north carolina borders georgia, and shares some of its top electoral concerns, as well as those in arizona, another sun belt state. trump carried north carolina in 2020 but did so by just over 70,000 votes, which has further buoyed democrats' hopes that this "purple" state (one that could vote red or blue) could be winnable in this election year. the keystone state is considered by some pundits to be the biggest prize on the electoral battleground map. it has been inundated with campaign stops from both harris and trump. the two candidates and their running mates have made more than 50 appearances there since mid july. pennsylvania proved pivotal in the 2020 election, when it backed biden. along with michigan and wisconsin, it has been a key focus of harris's campaign. trump survived the first of two attempts on his life in pennsylvania. he, too, has been campaigning there doggedly   and the state is at the centre of a controversial cash giveaway to voters by his supporter, elon musk. the economy is a top issue here, as well as many other places. inflation spiked across the country under the biden administration, before gradually reducing. pennsylvanians are far from unique among americans for feeling cost of living pressures as a result of inflation. but the price of groceries has risen faster in their state than in any other, according to market intelligence provider datasembly. high inflation could hurt harris across the us as polling suggests it has given voters an unfavourable view of the economy. trump has sought to attack his rival by pinning her to the biden economy   despite the latest official figures showing annual growth of 2.8%. the badger state picked the winning presidential candidate in both 2016 and 2020, by a margin of little more than 20,000 votes each time. pundits have suggested marginal states like wisconsin are where the biggest impact could be made by third party candidates who are campaigning against the policies of both the democratic and republication nominees. polling had indicated that a sizeable show of support for independent candidate robert f kennedy jr could have harmed the vote tallies for harris or trump. kennedy suspended his campaign in late august and endorsed trump. democrats have been fighting to have green party candidate jill stein removed from the ballot in wisconsin, saying the party did not comply with state election laws, and has also filed an elections complaint against cornel west, a left leaning academic. trump has described that state as “really important… if we win wisconsin, we win the whole thing”. the summer republican national convention was held in milwaukee. harris was rallying in that same city when her party's own convention formally nominated her as the democratic presidential candidate. aged just 10 when his father first became president, he's now well over six feet tall, and goes to new york university. the us president spoke about his plans for the second trump administration, as well as criticising the 'corrupt establishment'. watch the historic moment when the 45th president is returned to power as he takes the oath of office. elon musk, mark zuckerberg and jeff bezos were among those invited inside the capitol for donald trump's swearing in. thousands of people joined in on demonstrations as the united states prepares to inaugurate its new president. the outgoing us president warned against power in the hands of the wealthy, the threat of the tech industry and climate change. trump's pick for us attorney general was pressed on claims of election fraud and pardons for january 6 rioters. donald trump's defence secretary nominee was asked about his stance on women in combat and his alleged excessive drinking. harris, who trump defeated in the 2024 election, presided over the event as required by the us constitution. among the allies the president elect has chosen to join his administration are contentious figures, including among fellow republicans. the president elect has nominated rfk to lead the department of health and human services. the suspect used an “improvised incendiary device” to start the fire in portland, oregon, ahead of the us election. a week after losing the election, kamala harris's team are still appealing for funds. republicans have won control of both chambers of congress, yielding trump limited congressional oversight for at least 2 years. the president and president elect shook hands as part of a long standing tradition signifying the transfer of power. given all the things they’ve said about each other, joe biden and donald trump’s meeting could be really awkward. 'i think putin believes that he knows how to play trump', says trump's former adviser john bolton. the russian president says he was impressed by trump's reaction to the first assassination attempt against him. the president addressed americans from the white house for the first time since donald trump's election victory. after donald trump's decisive victory, we asked americans what they think made the difference for each campaign. elon musk's work to shrink the us government is being met with outrage from democrats and aid groups. the full senate voted in the evening, approving bondi as the next attorney general, tasked with running the department of justice. a conservative think tank set out a sweeping vision for governing that could influence trump's next term. what influence has it had so far? trump claims more taxes on trade wouldn't be a cost to the us   but almost all economists dispute this. the republican has started his second term at a fast pace. here's a handy guide to what he's done so far. copyright 2025 bbc. all rights reserved. the bbc is not responsible for the content of external sites. read about our approach to external linking.

loadin... october 31, 2024 | by scott bomboy on tuesday, nov. 5, 2024, voters from around the country will complete the process of choosing electors who will pick the next president and vice president of the united states. how did that process come to be, and how does it work? the election process was one of the key items considered in the constitution’s drafting in 1787 and ratification a year later. since 1789, the electoral college has been a unique feature of our constitutional form of government. the workings of the electoral college the term “electoral college” is not actually stated in the constitution’s wording. it has been used in the united states since the constitution’s ratification to explain the election process for the offices of the president and vice president. (the term “electoral college” had been used in europe before 1787 to describe groups of governing officials.) in the united states, voters do not select presidential candidates directly. they vote for slates of electors that represent each candidate. usually, the slates are chosen by the candidate’s political party in each state. the chief executive of each state and the district of columbia then appoint electors approved by each candidate. the constitution’s article ii, section 1 spells out the basic electoral college rules: the total number of elecatoral college members equals the number of office holders in congress and three additional electors from the district of columbia. the process of electing a president and vice president the electors of each state convene after the election on the first monday after the second wednesday in december. any disputes within the states over electors must be resolved by dec. 11, 2024, when the executive officer of each state signs a certificate of ascertainment to appoint the electors chosen by voters in the general election. on dec. 17, 2024, the electors in each state will meet to select the president and vice president of the united states. they almost always meet in person at the state or federal district capital. in 48 of 50 states, only the electors who represent the candidate with the most popular votes on election day each get to cast votes in the electoral college election. (maine and nebraska split votes by congressional district.) each state group sends its endorsed, official vote count certificate to the current vice president of the united states (acting as president of the senate), state officials, the federal court that has jurisdiction over the state capital area, and the federal archivist. the vote certificates must be received in washington, d.c., by dec. 25, 2024. the new federal congress convenes on jan. 3, 2025, and it meets on jan. 6, 2025 for the electoral college vote count. the vice president will open the vote certificates and pass them to two members of the house and two members of the senate, who count the votes. if there is a majority winner with at least 270 electoral votes and there are no successful objections filed by members of congress, the presidential election is certified and over. if there isn’t a majority winner, the election is sent to congress to decide. the house decides who is president; the senate decides who is vice president. more from the national constitution center’s interactive constitution our interactive constitution contains the constitution’s full text along with interpretations from scholars representing different perspectives on the constitution. each common interpretation, signed by both scholars, is a joint statement of what they agree about a provision’s history and meaning. the interactive constitution: article ii and the electoral college you can read the exact wording in the constitution about the electoral college in our interactive constitution, share that information with your friends and even embed the words on your own digital content. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive constitution/articles/article ii the interactive constitution: understanding the electoral college sanford v. levinson from the university of texas law school explains the story behind the electoral college, which was set out in the 1787 constitution as the mechanism by which americans select their presidents. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive constitution/amendments/amendment xii constitutional changes to the electoral college and election process the 12th amendment: the original text passed by congress dec. 9, 1803. ratified june 15, 1804. the 12th amendment changed a portion of article ii, section 1. a portion of the 12th amendment was changed by the 20th amendment. “the electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president and vice president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice president, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice president, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the united states, directed to the president of the senate;    the president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted …   click here for all of the 12th amendment. common interpretation: the 12th amendment the 20th amendment: the original text passed by congress march 2, 1932. ratified jan. 23, 1933. the 20th amendment changed a portion of article i, section 4, and a portion of the 12th amendment. “the terms of the president and the vice president shall end at noon on the 20th day of january, and the terms of senators and representatives at noon on the 3d day of january, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin … click here for all of the 20th amendment. common interpretation: the 20th amendment official government resources this is the official government publishing office version of the rules governing the joint meeting of congress on jan. 6, 2025, incorporating the electoral count act of 1887. 3 u.s. code § 15   counting electoral votes in congress. 3 u.s. code § 16   same; seats for officers and members of two houses in joint meeting 3 u.s. code § 17   same; limit of debate in each house 3 u.s. code § 18   same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting in focus: electoral college overview (2024). this congressional research service in focus report highlights key aspects and recent policy developments related to the electoral college. engage in deep thinking and analysis of the constitution and america’s founding principles. search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics. discover primary texts and historical documents that span american history and have shaped the american constitutional tradition. © 2025 national constitution center. all rights reserved. modal body text goes here.
newsletter we explain how one set of voters may decide the 2024 election. by david leonhardt the voters likely to decide the biden trump rematch don’t participate in most elections. they are irregular voters who tend to skip primaries and midterm elections but do often turn out for the country’s highest profile campaign   a presidential election. nate cohn, the times’s chief political analyst, explained this phenomenon in a recent article. president biden leads donald trump among americans who are highly engaged with politics, nate noted. yet less engaged voters are so dissatisfied with the country’s condition that they prefer trump by a wide enough margin to give trump a small overall lead. voted in a 2022 primary 49% biden 44% trump voted in 2022 midterms but not primaries more engaged 46 45 voted in 2020 but not 2022 less engaged 42 44 no voting history 35 49 voted in a 2022 primary 49% biden 44% trump voted in 2022 midterms but not primaries more engaged 46 45 voted in 2020 but not 2022 less engaged 42 44 no voting history 35 49 by the new york times these irregular voters have different concerns on average than politically engaged americans do. irregular voters are less likely to focus on hot button issues that motivate committed democrats and republicans, like abortion, immigration and democracy. irregular voters focus more on pocketbook issues like inflation and health care. they are more likely to say the economy is in bad shape. comparing people who voted in 2020 with registered voters who did not vote that year. history and recent polling suggest many people in the second group will vote this year. voted in 2020 did not vote in 2020 demographics do not have a bachelor’s degree 82% 60% 33 are younger than 45 70 attitudes say economy is only fair or poor 88 76 want a politician who promises fundamental change 65 35 say economy or health care is a top 2024 issue 36 29 use social media as main news source 30 15 always pay attention to politics 40 14 voted in 2020 did not vote in 2020 demographics 82% do not have a bachelor’s degree 60% are younger than 45 33 70 attitudes say economy is only fair or poor 76 88 want a politician who promises fundamental change 65 35 say economy or health care is a top 2024 issue 36 29 use social media as main news source 30 15 always pay attention to politics 40 14 based on new york times/philadelphia inquirer/siena college polls in six battleground states. by the new york times i think this pattern helps explain why some of biden’s core campaign messages have not resonated with swing voters. biden talks about the country’s soul and pitches himself as a defender of american values, especially democracy. it is an understandable pitch in many ways: trump is hostile to democratic traditions in a way that no other modern u.s. politician has been.

 introduction key takeaways methodology: a new approach to identifying swing voters demographics and ideology: who swing voters are views on key issues plans for voting in the 2024 election how biden can win   or lose   swing voters in november further insights update 8/22/24: read our updated swing voter report on harris trump swing voters by clicking here. the 2024 presidential election is unlike any in modern history. the american electorate is both highly polarized and deeply familiar with the two major party presidential candidates, president joseph r. biden jr. and former president donald j. trump. for the first time in decades, a third party presidential candidate, robert f. kennedy jr., is averaging nearly 10 percent of the vote less than six months before the election.