“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. ■
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