Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
In 2020 no other state produced as much election drama as Georgia. In the end it gave Democrats slender victories that helped them win both the White House and a majority in the Senate, though not before Donald Trump, unsuccessfully, implored Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes”, the number needed to overturn the swing state’s results in his favour. In 2024 Georgia will again find itself taking centre stage—for three reasons.
The first is Mr Trump. After a big win in Iowa, the former president looks as politically robust as ever. Though his legal woes have not alienated Republican voters (rather the reverse), they could yet cause him trouble, not least in Georgia. Last August a grand jury indicted him for running a criminal ring that conspired to overturn the state’s 2020 election. Unlike in the federal cases pending in Washington and Florida, if re-elected Mr Trump could not pardon himself from the Georgia charges (though, according to long-standing policy, he would have immunity while in the White House). Nor could Brian Kemp, the state’s Republican governor, nix them.
But the case has taken an unexpected turn. On January 8th Fani Willis, the district attorney prosecuting Mr Trump, was accused by one of his co-defendants of having a fling with a special prosecutor she hired. Though the salacious claim is unlikely to disqualify her from litigation, it opens her to allegations of corruption (Ms Willis denies acting improperly in hiring him). Her foes are calling for her to go. That plot twist is unlikely to be the last.
Second, there is the matter of election security. Though Georgia is not home to the country’s loudest election-deniers—its Republican statewide politicians have staunchly asserted that its contests have been fair—fierce debates over election safety are playing out in the courts. A case that has been dragging on for over six years is reaching its end. An Obama-appointed judge will decide in the coming weeks if Georgia must scrap its electronic voting machines. Left-wing plaintiffs argue that the touchscreen ballot-markers are eminently hackable and make paper audits impossible. They point to a breach in Coffee County, where Trump allies copied election software from a rural polling station in January 2021, as proof that bad actors have all they need to do damage in 2024.
Good on paper
To the dismay of the cyber-security professors making the case for a switch to hand-marked paper ballots, Georgia’s most infamous conspiracy-theorists have taken their side. During opening statements the courtroom was packed with Trump apostles keen to tell your correspondent about the counterfeit ballots that flipped elections past. The office of Mr Raffensperger, the defendant, says it refuses to negotiate with election-deniers of left or right, noting that the trial is sowing unsubstantiated distrust of the state’s elections.
On 11 criteria for “fair, accessible, secure and transparent” elections—including, for example, whether a state has early voting and conducts audits—the Bipartisan Policy Centre, a think-tank based in Washington, DC, ranks Georgia best in the country (tied with Colorado). Even some who do not see it that way reckon it is too late to change the voting system before November. “It would cause mayhem,” says Cianti Stewart-Reid, the head of Fair Fight Action, a voting group started by Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who ran for governor in 2018. The case plants the seeds for fights over the validity of the results in November.
Third, voting rights: Georgia’s increasingly diverse electorate makes the state a laboratory for the demographic changes expected across America—and the fights over voter access that come with them. That has catalysed a movement to get unlikely voters registered and to persuade national campaigns to invest in Georgia. The Abrams machine spent $400m doing so in the decade to 2022. But since 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the pre-clearance regime that gave the federal government authority to monitor election rules in places with historical injustices, Georgia’s Republicans have also been tightening voting laws.
After Joe Biden won Georgia in 2020 the legislature passed SB202, a bill that, among other things, made it illegal to pass out water and snacks to those queuing to vote and allowed individual citizens to challenge the voter registrations of neighbours they suspect are unlawfully registered. Though the law has had a more muted effect than some expected, it has forced Democrats into new battles. According to ProPublica, an investigative outlet, in two years nearly 100,000 registrations were challenged (oddly, 89,000 challenges were filed by just six people). Those who fail to respond to the notices can get kicked off the rolls. In early January Democrats lost in court to True the Vote, a conservative group leading the challenge crusade. Following the decision, its leaders announced the launch of new automated mass-challenge software.
All this amounts to the most dynamic political tug-of-war outside the capital. “Without a doubt there was some sore-loser politics involved, but SB202 addressed real issues as well,” says a Republican who took part in its deliberations. The handful of Georgia judges making decisions on the Trump trial, election security and voting-rights cases have the hard task of distinguishing between political high-jinks and good-faith arguments. Their rulings will matter for all Americans. ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter examining the state of American democracy, and read other articles about the elections of 2024.
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago