Connect with us

Economics

What happens in the days after America’s election

Published

on

“There are no redos when it comes to elections,” says Al Schmidt. “Everything has to be done just right.” His spiel is part gospel, part warning, part pep talk. As Pennsylvania’s secretary of state, Mr Schmidt oversees elections in America’s most contested battleground. The candidate who carries his state—Kamala Harris or Donald Trump—will probably take the White House.
When Mr Schmidt alludes to “everything” that needs doing in this election, he means more than just voting. In Pennsylvania and across the country, tallying votes is a decentralised and drawn-out process. It may take days to know the result after election day on November 5th. (In 2020, it took nearly four days until major news organisations declared Joe Biden the winner.) The narrower the margin, the more time will be required for counting and recounting. Even then the result will be unofficial until Congress certifies it on January 6th 2025. In between lie a series of procedural steps performed by thousands of local and state officials.

Few Americans thought much about the mechanics of their elections until Mr Trump and his lawyers furiously sought to overturn his loss to Mr Biden. At every opportunity they tried to subvert what had long been considered a pro-forma process. Mr Trump’s allies alleged voter fraud in bunkum lawsuits, unsuccessfully strong-armed local and state officials to alter tallies and tried and failed to persuade Mike Pence, then Mr Trump’s vice-president, to block Congress from affirming the result. That day Mr Trump’s supporters ransacked the Capitol.

If this year’s election is as close as polls suggest, expect another fraught few weeks between November 5th and January 6th. Mr Trump will probably declare victory before news networks have called the race, stoking acrimony and misinformation. That Ms Harris is likely to do better among voters who post their ballots means that her fortunes will probably improve as the count progresses, since counting postal votes is usually slower. This occurred in 2020 in Pennsylvania, where Mr Trump’s initial lead turned to defeat by just over 80,000 votes, fuelling conspiracy theories about election theft. Mr Schmidt, then a local commissioner in Philadelphia, was targeted by Mr Trump on Twitter for refusing to investigate a “mountain of corruption”. Threats from MAGA supporters followed.

Counting: the days

All times in Eastern Standard Time (GMT–5)

Election day

Polls open in Pennsylvania. Counting of mail-in ballots starts

Polls close in Pennsylvania. Deadline for mail-in ballots to have reached counting officials

Unofficial results begin to be posted by local election boards in Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. In 2020, the close vote meant that four days passed before major news organisations declared that Joe Biden had won the state

In Pennsylvania, official canvass of the election starts. Counties “reconcile” their votes to check that the number of people recorded as having voted in each precinct matches the number of ballots counted. Officials also check the eligibility of provisional ballots

Unofficial county returns due to Pennsylvania’s secretary of state. Recount petitions must be filed within the next five days. If no revisions needed, then counties must certify

Pennsylvania’s secretary of state orders an automatic recount for any statewide race within a half-percentage-point margin

Recounts in Pennsylvania must begin no later than this date

Deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify to the secretary of state, who then starts on statewide certification

Deadline for governors (or, in the District of Columbia, the mayor) to submit a certificate of ascertainment, naming their state’s electors, to the National Archives

Electors meet in their state capitals to cast their votes

Deadline for electoral-college votes to be sent to the National Archives and the president of the Senate (ie, Kamala Harris in her capacity as vice-president)

Congress meets to count electoral-college votes and affirm the winner. Kamala Harris presides

The new president is inaugurated

In 2020 it took four days for news outlets to call the state, which delivered enough electoral-college votes to clinch Mr Biden’s victory. The delay stemmed partly from the fact that Pennsylvania prevents officials from pre-processing postal votes before election day. They cannot remove ballots from their envelopes, verify signatures and prepare ballots for machine counting. (Wisconsin is the only other swing state to similarly restrict pre-processing.) In 2020, amid the pandemic, 39% of ballots were cast by mail in Pennsylvania. The share may not be so high this time.

In Pennsylvania the count—or “canvass”—of postal ballots begins at 7am on election day. Most counties in the state, because they receive state funding, are required to keep at it until the job is finished, without pause. To be counted, postal votes must be received by the time that polls close, at 8pm on election day.

States write laws and set parameters for election administration, but counties handle the bulk of the work. They are like fiefdoms, says John Jones, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania; America has more than 3,000 of them. County commissioners select polling places, recruit staff and oversee the canvass. Then they report their tallies to state officials, who add them all up and certify the statewide result. Certifying means attesting to the accuracy and completeness of a count; until then returns are unofficial.

Allies of Mr Trump who claim without evidence that the 2020 election was rigged have been shut out of the most important statewide jobs in Arizona, Pennsylvania and even those swing states governed by Republicans. As a result, state officeholders are unlikely to block certification should Mr Trump lose. But some rogue officials at county level might withhold certification and thereby impede the rest of the process. Their job is “ministerial”, not discretionary, courts have ruled. They have no authority to investigate fraud or errors—under Pennsylvania law, that is for prosecutors and courts. In October a state judge in Georgia ruled that county election boards could not “play investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge” if they suspect fraud, and that they must certify once counting is finished.

Still, if Mr Trump loses, some county commissioners will probably allege improprieties and refuse to certify, inviting stand-offs with state officials. Already dozens have tried this in elections held over the past four years in every swing state but Wisconsin. When two Republican officials in Wayne County, Michigan, declined to certify the 2020 canvass there, Mr Trump tweeted: “Having courage is a beautiful thing.” In 2022 a Republican commissioner in Otero County, New Mexico, said his refusal to certify a primary election was based on “gut feeling”, not “evidence”. These cases were resolved when state officials or candidates either secured or threatened to seek a “writ of mandamus”, a court order compelling commissioners to certify. In Arizona two scofflaws were indicted.

Yet even unsuccessful efforts can mean long delays. In Pennsylvania, during the primaries in 2022, three majority-Republican county boards refused to certify the results because they decided that misdated postal votes need not be counted, contrary to state guidance. Courts ordered the boards to include those ballots and they eventually complied—more than three months after the primary. (Since then Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has ruled that misdated postal ballots should not be counted.) A similar delay this year would conflict with the timeline for state-vote certification prescribed by federal law.

That law requires governors—in Pennsylvania’s case, Josh Shapiro, a Democrat—to submit statewide results by December 11th. These are known as “certificates of ascertainment”. To meet that date, states impose earlier deadlines on counties: in Pennsylvania, it is November 25th. Some Pennsylvania counties could miss the deadline if they slow-walk recounts, reckons Mr Jones, who predicts that Mr Schmidt may seek writs of mandamus in such cases. (In Pennsylvania recounts are automatically triggered in any race where the margin of victory is half a percentage point or less. Voters or candidates can ask courts for a recount if the margin is larger, but they typically must present evidence of fraud or error.)

Lawyers and courts, for their part, are poised to move quickly. Under rules handed down by Pennsylvania’s highest court, the timeline to appeal against a court decision has been compressed. What would normally take two or three months will happen in several days, says Ben Geffen of the Public Interest Law Centre in Philadelphia. As for claims of voter fraud, courts have had little patience for specious ones.

Certificates of ascertainment identify a state’s electors. These are representatives from the party of the winning candidate in each state, whom they pledge to vote for in the electoral college. Electors will meet in their state capitals on December 17th to fulfil this ceremonial role. On January 6th Congress counts electors’ votes and ratifies the winner. After the election in 2020 Republican lawmakers objected to the votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania; eight senators and 139 congressmen voted in favour of one or both objections. That will be harder this time: a federal law adopted in 2022 raised the threshold to lodge an objection from one member in each chamber to a fifth of members in each. Sustaining an objection requires a majority in each.

That the whole process appears so complex is a product of federalism and an archaic electoral-college system. That it faces such strain is a result of Mr Trump’s attacks. Unlike four years ago, everyone is attuned to the vulnerabilities now. “We’re not going to get caught with our pants down,” says Mr Geffen. The bigger worry, he adds, is disinformation and the distrust it sows. That problem can’t be solved by the courts.

Sources: The Economist

Continue Reading

Economics

Gavin Newsom is ready for his close-up

Published

on

NORMALLY, GAVIN NEWSOM is loose. The Democratic governor of California talks with a staccato cadence, often flitting from one incomplete thought to the next. When he talks to journalists or asks a guest on his podcast a meandering question, he tends to use a lot of meaningless filler words: “in the context of” is a frequent Newsomism. But on June 10th he was clear and direct. “This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation,” he said during a televised address after President Donald Trump deployed nearly 5,000 troops to Los Angeles to quell protests over immigration raids. “We do not want our streets militarised by our own armed forces. Not in LA. Not in California. Not anywhere.”

Continue Reading

Economics

Consumer sentiment reading rebounds to much higher level than expected as people get over tariff shock

Published

on

A woman shops at a supermarket on April 30, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.

Sha Hanting | China News Service | Getty Images

Consumers in the early part of June took a considerably less pessimistic about the economy and potential surges in inflation as progress appeared possible in the global trade war, according to a University of Michigan survey Friday.

The university’s closely watched Surveys of Consumers showed across-the-board rebounds from previously dour readings, while respondents also sharply cut back their outlook for near-term inflation.

For the headline index of consumer sentiment, the gauge was at 60.5, well ahead of the Dow Jones estimate for 54 and a 15.9% increase from a month ago. The current conditions index jumped 8.1%, while the future expectations measure soared 21.9%.

The moves coincided with a softening in the heated rhetoric that has surrounded President Donald Trump’s tariffs. After releasing his April 2 “liberation day” announcement, Trump has eased off the threats and instituted a 90-day negotiation period that appears to be showing progress, particularly with top trade rival China.

“Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,” survey director Joanne Hsu said in a statement. “However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.”

To be sure, all of the sentiment indexes were still considerably below their year-ago readings as consumers worry about what impact the tariffs will have on prices, along with a host of other geopolitical concerns.

On inflation, the one-year outlook tumbled from levels not seen since 1981.

The one-year estimate slid to 5.1%, a 1.5 percentage point drop, while the five-year view edged lower to 4.1%, a 0.1 percentage point decrease.

“Consumers’ fears about the potential impact of tariffs on future inflation have softened somewhat in June,” Hsu said. “Still, inflation expectations remain above readings seen throughout the second half of 2024, reflecting widespread beliefs that trade policy may still contribute to an increase in inflation in the year ahead.”

The Michigan survey, which will be updated at the end of the month, had been an outlier on inflation fears, with other sentiment and market indicators showing the outlook was fairly contained despite the tariff tensions. Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve of New York reported that the one-year view had fallen to 3.2% in May, a 0.4 percentage point drop from the prior month.

At the same time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics this week reported that both producer and consumer prices increase just 0.1% on a monthly basis, pointing toward little upward pressure from the duties. Economists still largely expect the tariffs to show impact in the coming months.

The soft inflation numbers have led Trump and other White House officials to demand the Fed start lowering interest rates again. The central bank is slated to meet next week, with market expectations strongly pointing to no cuts until September.

Continue Reading

Economics

Reeves’ plans contending with the bond market

Published

on

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – MARCH 26, 2025: Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves leaves 11 Downing Street ahead of the announcement of the Spring Statement in the House of Commons in London, United Kingdom on March 26, 2025. (Photo credit should read Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

Wiktor Szymanowicz | Future Publishing | Getty Images

Britain’s government is planning to ramp up public spending — but market watchers warn the proposals risk sending jitters through the bond market further inflating the country’s $143 billion-a-year interest payments.

U.K. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves on Wednesday announced the government would inject billions of pounds into defense, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas of the economy, in the coming years. A day later, however, official data showed the U.K. economy shrank by a greater-than-expected 0.3% in April.

Funding public spending in the absence of a growing economy, leaves the government with two options: raise money through taxation, or take on more debt.

One way it can borrow is to issue bonds, known as gilts in the U.K., into the public market. By purchasing gilts, investors are essentially lending money to the government, with the yield on the bond representing the return the investor can expect to receive.

Gilt yields and prices move in opposite directions — so rising prices move yields lower, and vice versa. This year, gilt yields have seen volatile moves, with investors sensitive to geopolitical and macroeconomic instability.

The U.K. government’s long-term borrowing costs spiked to multi-decade highs in January, and the yield on 20- and 30-year gilts continues to hover firmly above 5%.

Official estimates show the government is expected to spend more than £105 billion ($142.9 billion) paying interest on its national debt in the 2025 fiscal year — £9.4 billion higher than at the the time of the Autumn budget last year — and £111 billion in annual interest in 2026.

The government did not say on Wednesday how its newly unveiled spending hikes will be funded, and did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment about where the money will come from. However, in her Autumn Budget last year, Reeves outlined plans to hike both taxes and borrowing. Following the budget, the finance minister pledged not to raise taxes again during the current Labour government’s term in office, saying that the government “won’t have to do a budget like this ever again.”

Andrew Goodwin, chief U.K. economist at Oxford Economics, said Britain’s government may be forced to go even further with its spending plans, with NATO poised to hike its defense spending target for member states to 5% of GDP, and once a U-turn on winter fuel payments for the elderly and other possible welfare reforms are factored in.

Additionally, Goodwin said, the U.K.’s Office for Budget Responsibility is likely to make “unfavorable revisions” to its economic forecasts in July, which would lead to lower tax receipts and higher borrowing.

“If recent movements in financial market pricing hold, debt servicing costs will be around £2.5bn ($3.4 billion) higher than they were at the time of the Spring Statement,” Goodwin warned in a note on Wednesday.

‘Very fragile situation’

Mel Stride, who serves as the shadow Chancellor in the U.K.’s opposition government, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday that the Spending Review raised questions about whether “a huge amount of borrowing” will be involved in funding the government’s fiscal strategies.

“[Government] borrowing is having consequences in terms of higher inflation in the U.K. … and therefore interest rates [are] higher for longer,” he said. “It’s adding to the debt mountain, the servicing costs upon which are running at 100 billion [pounds] a year, that’s twice what we spend on defense.”

“I’m afraid the overall economy is in a very weak position to withstand the kind of spending and borrowing that this government is announcing,” Stride added.

UK is in a 'very fragile situation,' Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride says

Stride argued that Reeves will “almost certainly” have to raise taxes again in her next budget announcement due in the autumn.

“We’ve ended up in a very fragile situation, particularly when you’ve got the tariffs around the world,” he said.

Rufaro Chiriseri, head of fixed income for the British Isles at RBC Wealth Management, told CNBC that rising borrowing costs were putting Reeves’ “already small fiscal headroom at risk.”

“This reduced headroom could create a snowball effect, as investors could potentially become nervous to hold UK debt, which could lead to a further selloff until fiscal stability is restored,” he said.

Iain Barnes, Chief Investment Officer at Netwealth, also told CNBC on Thursday that the U.K. was in “a state of fiscal fragility, so room for manoeuvre is limited.”

“The market knows that if growth disappoints, then this year’s Budget may have to deliver higher taxes and increased borrowing to fund spending plans,” Barnes said.

However, April LaRusse, head of investment specialists at Insight Investment, argued there were ways for debt servicing burdens to be kept under control.

The U.K.’s Debt Management Office, which issues gilts, has scope to reshape issuance patters — the maturity and type of gilts issued — to help the government get its borrowing costs under control, she said.

“With the average yield on the 1-10 year gilts at c4% and the yield on the 15 year + gilts at 5.2% yield, there is scope to make the debt financing costs more affordable,” she explained.

However, LaRusse noted that debt interest payments for the U.K. government were estimated to reach the equivalent of around 3.5% of GDP this fiscal year, and that overspending could worsen the burden.

“This increase is driven not only by higher interest rates, which gradually translate into higher coupon payments, but also by elevated levels of government spending, compounding the fiscal burden,” she said.

Continue Reading

Trending