See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345149328

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE USA

ELECTORATE

Preprint · November 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11236.40324

CITATION READS

1 991

1 author:

Vladislav Fedorov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
19 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vladislav Fedorov on 01 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Preprint

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND

TRANSFORMATION OF THE USA ELECTORATE
Vladislav Fedorov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
1 Leninskiye Gory, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation,
fedorov@polit.msu.ru
Abstarct
The article deals with the reasons of the growth of the American electoral
polarization during the presidential election campaign in 2016. If in 2016 the electoral
weight of Afro-Americans, Latinos and Asian people was 28,5%, then by 2050 their
percentage in the structure of the electorate might reach 50%. Basing on the data of the
social-demographic structure of voters and the electoral statistics, the conclusion is made
about the inevitable structural changes in the political system.
With the help of estimation of mean square deviation the results of presidential
elections in the USA over a period of 1900-2016 are analyzed. In 2016 the electoral
polarization reached the highest number since 1968 and will increase in the future that
threatens the growth of political turbulence.
Considerable electoral advantage of Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump is
explained not by a bigger support of the candidate from the democrats throughout the
country, but by local success in California and New York. The electorate support of Trump
was more evenly distributed throughout the country that led to his success.
American society in the first quarter of the XXI century is undergoing a serious
political crisis that can lead to deep transformations of the political system. It will be more
difficult to predict political processes. The most evident reforms are the following: the
transition from the majority election system to the proportional one on the election of
Congress, the appearance of the third party and transition to the direct presidential
election.
The importance of the Election Day in the USA is decreasing rapidly. More and
more voters are voting in advance that affects the strategy and tactics of the election
campaign. Nowadays candidates are trying to bring undecided voters on their side as
early as possible.
One of the most effective ways of predicting the results of the presidential election
in the USA is still the method called “13 keys to the White House”, created by the
American politologist A. Lichtman and the soviet mathematician V. Keilis-Borok. This
method based on the analysis of the traditions of political culture and political process,
demands careful examination for adaptation to other fields of study in political science.

Keywords: presidential election in the USA, electoral polarization, Donald Trump,

Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Georg Hegel, Allan Lichtman.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any
way.

1
 Introduction
The structure of the US electorate is undergoing significant changes that affect the
results of elections at all levels. America's political process is increasingly influenced by
national groups of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Politics has finally ceased
to be the sphere of activity of the white population. According to the US Census Bureau,
the share of Hispanics and Asians among voters over the past 20 years has grown almost
twofold1. The position of African Americans during this period has not changed
significantly.

Table 1. Changes in the ethnic composition of the electorate in the United

States 1996-2016 years
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
White, not Spanish 79,2 77,7 75,2 73,4 71,1 69,1
African Americans 11,9 12,2 11,9 12,1 12,5 12,7
Hispanics 6,1 7,1 8,2 9,5 10,8 11,7
Asians 2,1 2,5 3,2 3,4 3,8 4,1

For example, the population of Chicago is now dominated by Black or African

American (35%), Hispanic or Latino (32%). The share of Non-Hispanic whites is 31%. In
Illinois, the share of non-Hispanic whites fell from 83.5% in 1970 to 61% in 2018.
Minorities usually vote for the Democratic Party. The last time Illinois supported a
Republican candidate in the US presidential election was in 1988, this lucky man was
George W. Bush.

Hegel’s Dialectics and American electorate

How do Hegel's dialectic2 laws work on the example of the US electorate
transformation? Let's describe this process briefly. According to the first law of Hegel's
dialectics, there will be a transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones. Ethnic
minorities would gain political power by increasing their numbers. The more African
Americans, Hispanics, and Asians are there, the more representatives of their interests
are in power. Will the law of double negation work? Only carriers of a different political
culture can overcome the old order of the US political system, such as indirect presidential
elections and the dominance of two political parties. The elite democracy of the United
States, created more than 200 years ago, has outlived itself. Young political forces
demand direct presidential elections and a multi-party political system. But the process of
political transformation will drag on for a long time. The impetus for this transformation
will be a large-scale economic and political crisis. The law of unity and the struggle of
opposites shows that minorities had not previously recognized themselves as holders of
political power, but difficult relationship with white Americans forced them to develop
political activism. Contradictions between different ethnic groups ultimately ensure
political development. Thus, the political crisis in the United States will not lead to the
destruction of the country, like the USSR case in 1991. Candidates of 2016 and 2020
presidential elections have become symbols of the old political system. Voters want to
see young politicians and businessmen like Barack Obama or Elon Musk. Today's US
political system is similar to the principles of the Catholic Church, described by Fyodor
Dostoevsky in The Grand Inquisitor3. American elitist democracy, like Dostoevsky's

1
United States Census Bureau. Electoral profile of the US population. URL:
http://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/electorate-profiles-2016.html;
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-568.pdf
2
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Science of Logic. 2010. Edited and translated by George di Giovanni. 863 p.
3
The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 2020. Translated by H.P. Blavatsky. 2020. 34 p.
2
Catholic Churchn seeks to become the political basis for the unification of mankind: to
give bread to a person, to control his conscience and rule the world.

The United States presidential election 2016

The 2016 presidential election showed that the increasing complexity of
forecasting electoral behavior is the result of socio-economic and political processes that
have been developing for decades. Contrary to the forecasts of sociologists and political
scientists, voters in 29 states supported Trump, and he won 304 electoral votes. Election
race favorite Hilary Clinton won only 21 states and the Metropolitan District of Columbia.
Due to the peculiarities of the regional distribution of electoral votes, she got only 227
votes. As for 2020 presidential election, sociologists predict victory of Trump's rival,
Joseph Biden. Even Alan Lichtman believes that Trump has no chance of winning.
Perhaps the experts are mistaken again? And Trump will win again with his powerful
influence on Facebook? 46.1% of voters voted for Trump in 2016, and 48.2% for Clinton.
Trump won in 29 states, and Clinton in 21 states and in the metropolitan district of
Columbia. The distribution of Trump's support across the country is more even than
Clinton's. Clinton's advantage over Trump in voting is due to a very high support of a
democratic candidate in densely populated states such as New York and California. So,
in New York, Clinton's advantage over Trump was 1.73 million voters, and in California –
4.3 million. The key to Trump's success was that he had more states with average
electoral support that gave him electoral votes.

Chart 1. States Voting for the top two candidates in the 2016 us presidential
election

34
26 18
40 10
30
20 7 Less than 40%
5
10 From 40 to 60%
More than 60%
0
Trump Clinton

The vote of the electors also turned out to be unusual. Seven electors refused to
vote for any of the presidential candidates. Clinton lost four electoral votes in Washington
and one vote in Hawaii. The state of Washington has 8 electoral votes, but only four
electors voted for Clinton. Three electors supported former Secretary of State Colin
Powell, and one cast his vote for the leader Faith Spotted Eagle Indian tribe. The leader
is a woman who became famous for fighting against the construction of an oil pipeline in
North Dakota and protecting victims of sexual violence. The state of Hawaii delegated
four electors to the College, but Clinton received three votes, one elector supported
Bernard Sanders.
Trump lost two votes in Texas. Huge Texas has 38 electoral votes, but 36 electors
voted for Trump. One "Jumbo State" elector supported Ohio Governor John Kasich, and
another voted for veteran of American politics Ron Paul.

3
 Voter turnout
The record of electoral activity in 2016 will not be surpassed for a very long time.
Voter turnout in 2016 was significantly greater than in the 2008 elections, when the owner
of the White House was also supposed to change. Thus, 131.46 million voters voted in
the 2008 elections, then in 2012 the electoral activity decreased due to the predictability
of Obama's victory, only 129.06 million voters voted4.
In 2016 the electoral activity grew as Americans were choosing a president who
could possibly be the owner of the White House for 8 years in the future. In 2016, 136.55
million voters took part in the presidential election. Thus, the share of the active electorate
in 2016 increased by 5.42% compared to the 2012 elections and by 3.66% compared to
the 2008 elections.
When analyzing electoral statistics, one should not forget that over the past 8 years
the number of American voters has increased by 6 million, so the explanation for the
growth in the number of voters depends not only on the severity of the candidates' election
struggle, but also on demographic processes in American society. In the table below you
can see the results of the state voting, the distribution of states in the table depends on
their electoral weight – from more to less. The increased flexibility in the timing and forms
of voting also plays an important role in increasing the voter turnout. In 2016, 136.5 million
voters took part in the US presidential election, of which 47 million voted ahead of
schedule, thus the share of early voters has increased to 34.4%. Older people, disabled
people and more educated voters are most likely to use the methods of "convenient
voting" which are to vote by mail or in early voting centers. According to the political
scientist, assistant professor of the University of Florida Michael P. McDonald, such
concept as the "election day" has become an anachronism for millions of American
voters. He says that "since the early 1990s, the share of voters who vote ahead of
schedule has grown from less than one tenth to one third. Growth is fueled by two
reasons. More and more states provide the opportunity to vote in advance and after the
state introduces early voting, more and more people take advantage of this opportunity5.
Ultimately, increased flexibility in voting time will have a positive impact on electoral
activity and the competitiveness of election campaigns. COVID-19 pandemic is driving
the development of remote voting6.
A single day for voting for the president on the first Tuesday after the first Monday
of November was established by the US federal authorities in 1845 so that voters could
not vote several times, moving from one state to another. Early voting returned during the
Civil War. Soldiers voted in absentia and sent ballots to family members so that they could
pass them on to the election organizers by proxy. Almost all the entire 20th century in the
United States, voting ahead of schedule by mail was allowed only if the voter could not
come to the polling station due to illness or due to a planned trip to another state or
abroad. Only in 1980, California pioneered the revival of early voting, abolishing the
mandatory conditions for voting by mail. Since then, California and other states, mostly
in the West, have provided an opportunity to vote by mail to any voter.

4
Fedorov V.I. 2016. Polarization of the electorate in the US Presidential election (retrospective view). Citizen.
Election. Power. No. 2-3. pp. 179-194. (Fedorov V.I. Polyarizaciya elektorata na vyborah Prezidenta SSHA
(retrospektivnyj vzglyad). Grazhdanin. Vybory. Vlast'. No. 2–3. 2016. pp. 179–194)
http://www.rcoit.ru/upload/iblock/73a/ГВВ_2_3_2016_Поляризация%20электората%20на%20выборах%20Пр
езидента%20США%20(ретроспективный%20взгляд).pdf
5
McDonald M.P. A Brief History Of Early Voting. URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-
brief-history-of-early_b_12240120.html
6
Fedorov V.I. 2020. Electronic voting and democratic transit. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11047.78242
4
 Table 2. Voting States in the presidential election USA, 2016
Candidate Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
State Electoral Votes Electoral Votes
college college
votes votes
California 0 4,483,810 55 8,753,788
Texas 36 4,685,047 0 3,877,868
New York 0 2,814,346 29 4,547,218
Florida 29 4,617,886 0 4,504,975
Pennsylvania 20 2,970,733 0 2,926,441
Illinois 0 2,146,015 20 3,090,729
Ohio 18 2,841,005 0 2,394,164
Michigan 16 2,279,543 0 2,268,839
Georgia 16 2,089,104 0 1,877,963
North Carolina 15 2,362,631 0 2,189,316
New Jersey 0 1,601,933 14 2,148,278
Virginia 0 1,769,443 13 1,981,473
Massachusetts 0 1,090,893 11 1,995,196
Indiana 11 1,557,286 0 1,033,126
Tennessee 11 1,522,925 0 870,695
Arizona 11 1,252,401 0 1,161,167
Maryland 0 943,169 10 1,677,928
Missouri 10 1,594,511 0 1,071,068
Minnesota 0 1,322,951 10 1,367,716
Wisconsin 10 1,405,284 0 1,382,536
South Carolina 9 1,155,389 0 855,373
Alabama 9 1,318,255 0 729,547
Colorado 0 1,202,484 9 1,338,870
Washington 0 1,221,747 4 1,742,718
Kentucky 8 1,202,971 0 628,854
Louisiana 8 1,178,638 0 780,154
Connecticut 0 673,215 7 897,572
Oklahoma 7 949,136 0 420,375
Oregon 0 782,403 7 1,002,106
Nevada 0 512,058 6 539,260
Utah 6 515,231 0 310,676
Kansas 6 671,018 0 427,005
Iowa 6 800,983 0 653,669
Arkansas 6 684,872 0 380,494
Mississippi 6 700,714 0 485,131
West Virginia 5 489,371 0 188,794
Nebraska 5 495,961 0 284,494
New Mexico 0 319,666 5 385,234
Idaho 4 409,055 0 189,765
Hawaii 0 128,847 3 266,891
Maine 1 335,593 3 357,735
New Hampshire 0 345,790 4 348,526
Rhode Island 0 180,543 4 252,525
Alaska 3 163,387 0 116,454
Montana 3 279,240 0 177,709
North Dakota 3 216,794 0 93,758
South Dakota 3 227,701 0 117,442
Wyoming 3 174,419 0 55,973
Veromnt 0 95,369 3 178,573
Delaware 0 185,127 3 235,603
District of Columbia 0 12,723 3 282,830
Total 306 62,955,340 232 65,788,564

5
 Polarization of the electorate
Let's examine the regional distribution of the popularity of the two main candidates
for the presidency of the United States. In order to do that it is necessary to identify
extremes and averages of electoral support for candidates.
1. To determine the extremes of electoral support for candidates, we will take a
corridor of values of 20 points. The average level of support indicates a result in the range
from 40 to 60%, a high level – more than 60%, a low – less than 40%.
2. We will carry out a mathematical analysis of the election results using the
procedure for finding the values of the standard deviation.
In the vote for D. Trump there are fewer extremes in the country, at least in the
District of Columbia (4%), the maximum is in Wyoming (70%), the distance between
extremes is 66 points.
D. Trump received more than 60% of the vote in 7 states: Alabama, Wyoming,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Tennessee. In the last election, Mitt
Romney received more than 60% of the vote in 10 states. He received less than 40% in
10 regions: Washington, Vermont, Hawaii, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland,
New York, Rhode Island and in the metropolitan district of Columbia.
Voting for H. Clinton in the country is polarized more strongly, the minimum is in
Wyoming (21.9%), the maximum is in the country's capital (90.9%), the distance between
extremes is 69 points.
She received more than 60% of the vote in 5 states: California, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Maryland and the Metropolitan District of Columbia, with more than 90%
of voters voting for Clinton in the capital. In total, these states provided 81 votes in the
electoral college. Less than 40% was received in 18 states: Idaho, Alabama, Alaska,
Arkansas, Wyoming, West Virginia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri,
Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tenessee and Utah.
Compared to the "Elephants", the Democrats had more territories where they
"failed," but this was offset by the low electoral weight of these states. In 18 states, 75
electoral votes were lost. Like in the 2012 election, Democrats lost miserably in the
conservative American outback, where the last Democrat to win was Lyndon Johnson in
the 1964 election. On average, the polarization of voting for Clinton is higher than for
Trump. Territories where voter support was in the corridor from 40 to 60% for D. Trump
– 33, H. Clinton – 30. In the 2012 elections, the polarization of voting was also less among
Republicans (M. Romney – 32, Obama – 30). In states where the number of unemployed
is increasing, dissatisfaction with policies is growing, and most voters supported Trump's
program to create 25 million jobs inside the United States over 10 years.
On order to study the features of state voting in the US presidential election, there
is an effective mathematical method: the calculation of standard deviation. This method
determines the polarization of the electorate and answers the question whether there are
large differences in voting for candidates in the country. As a formalized method, "middle
quadratic" demonstrates the unique features of the studied object free from subjective
influence of the researcher. The theoretical and methodological foundations for the study
of political processes by mathematical and statistical methods are founded in the works
of American scientists, D. Black, E. Downs R. McKelvey, K. May, C. Plott, K. Arrow7.

7
Black D. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge Univ. Press, 242 p.; Arrow K. 1951. Social Choice
and Individual Values. N.Y.: Wiley, 90 p.; Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. N.Y., Harper and Row,
320 p.; May K. 1952. A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision.
Econometrica, No. 20. pp. 680-684; McKelvey R. 1976. Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models. Journal of
Economic Theory, No. 12. pp. 472-478.
6
 The square deviation calculation formula looks like this:

Where σ – standard deviation, ∑ – sum of squares of differences of sizes, N –

number of variables.
Let's examine the example of the 2016 presidential election. We will analyze the
results of the elections, in which two main candidates took part in the context of the
regions. The results of candidates in each of the regions are different, in order to formulate
a judgment on the polarization of voting for a candidate in the territory, it is necessary to
calculate the value of the standard deviation. Our research task is to find out the typical
voting for a candidate in the territory, to determine how consolidated voters vote for him.
We compared two variables (2 candidates) across 51 parameters (50 states and the
District of Columbia). The average quadratic deviation for H. Clinton is 12.22, D. Trump -
11.72. Polarization of the electorate is the highest since 1968. In general, the winners of
the presidential election have a lower level of polarization than competitors.
In the best way, the results of our calculations can be presented in the form of a
table (Table 3.).
Table 3. Polarization of the electorate in the US presidential election
Election Democratic Square Republican Square
years deviation deviation
2016 Hillary Clinton 12,22 Donald Trump 11,72
2012 Barack Obama 11,75 Mitt Romney 11,65
2008 Barack Obama 10,99 John McCain 10,90
2004 John Kerry 10,22 George W. Bush 10,24
2000 Albert Gore, Jr. 10,10 George W. Bush 10,29
1996 William J. Clinton 8,47 Robert Dole 8,24
1992 William J. Clinton 8,43 George Bush 6,35
1988 Michael Dukakis 7,66 George Bush 7,75
1984 Walter Mondale 8,69 Ronald Reagan 8,56
1980 Jimmy Carter 9,25 Ronald Reagan 8,91
1976 Jimmy Carter 7,82 Gerald R. Ford 7,24
1972 George McGovern 8,91 Richard M. Nixon 8,65
1968 Hubert Humphrey 11,08 Richard M. Nixon 10,30
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 13,60 Barry Goldwater 11,53
1960 John F. Kennedy 5,41 Richard M. Nixon 7,11
1956 Adlai Stevenson 6,88 Dwight D. Eisenhower 9,41
1952 Adlai Stevenson 8,48 Dwight D. Eisenhower 11,28
1948 Harry S Truman 11,60 Thomas E. Dewey 12,63
1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt 11,96 Thomas E. Dewey 12,78
1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt 13,44 Wendell L. Willkie 13,35
1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt 12,57 Alfred M. Landon 11,77
1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt 14,27 Herbert Hoover 13,24
1928 Alfred E. Smith 12,38 Herbert Hoover 12,24
1924 John W. Davis 22,25 Calvin Coolidge 15,96
1920 James M. Cox 17,38 Warren G. Harding 15,92
1916 Woodrow Wilson 13,39 Charles E. Hughes 13,97
1912 Woodrow Wilson 15,79 William Howard Taft 10,61
1908 William Jennings Bryan 15,33 William Howard Taft 14,86
1904 Alton B. Parker 19,65 Theodore Roosevelt 18,66
1900 William Jennings Bryan 14 William McKinley 13,99

7
 If we analyze these tables, we can see that throughout the twentieth century
fluctuations in the level of polarization of the electorate had a pronounced downward
trend, after jumps in polarization, noticeable recessions followed, and each next jump was
less than the previous one. Polarization of the electorate began to grow continuously
since 1988 and peaked in 2016. Why? This question can be answered with the help of
two most popular electoral behavior theories: sociological and economic.
Within the framework of the sociological theory of electoral behavior, the decisive
role in the electoral process is assigned not to the individual, but to the social group to
which he belongs. The polarization of the electorate is expressed in deep electoral
divisions (cleavage) along the traditional lines, which were proposed by Martin Lipset and
Stein Rokkan in the work "Cleavage Structures, Party System, and Voter Alignments"8
Researchers believe that the defining divisions for the United States are the confrontation
between Protestant immigrants of the first wave and immigrants of a later time: Jews,
Catholics, African Americans, as well as contradictions between speakers of English and
Spanish.
The portrait of an American voter has changed significantly. The depth of electoral
divisions is growing due to the steady increase of minorities among voters. Over the past
20 years, the share of white voters has decreased from 80% in 1996 to 69% in 2016.
Over the same period, the share of minorities has grown to 30%. In the economic, political
and cultural spheres of life, the role of minorities is increasingly visible. The share of
minorities in the structure of the American electorate is now 30%. Of course, the rivalry
of representatives of different ethnic groups creates tension. The trend of increasing
polarization of electoral preferences was clearly indicated in 2000 and has been
continuing for 16 years.
Also new splits are added to traditional ones. In modern America, property split
along the lines of the middle class - the poor - has great influence on electoral behavior.
26.6 million voters live below the poverty line in the United States.
In the melting pot, solid structures of white and non-white, speakers of English and
Spanish, the middle class and the poor, residents of megacities and rural areas are
distinguished. For two centuries, they all became Americans, not the same, but very
different. All of them have both antagonistic and common interests. American society is
like amalgam, which consists of mercury and other metals of different properties, joined
together they form an alloy with qualitatively new characteristics. If the amalgam melts,
then it will break into separate components and it will be difficult to restore it.
According to American sociologist Michael Mann, author of the fundamental work
"Power in the 21st Century", neoliberalism, mixed with American conservatism (militarism,
moral values, racism, now in hidden form), has long been the ideology of the Republican
Party of the United States9. The foundation that unites Republicans is three key factors:
family values, respect for religion and the desire to limit the role of the state in society.
Michael Mann emphasizes that in terms of inequality, the United States ranks first among
the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Harvard University professor Alberto Alesina notes the continuing hidden political
and social inequality in American society. Political inequality exists despite the passage
of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. This Act was designed to ensure the implementation of
voting rights for ethnic minorities, especially in southern states10. The law was ratified
when Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the owner of the White House. It was the US

8
Lipset S.M., Rokkan S. 1990. Cleavage Structures, Party System, and Voter Alignments. The West European Party
System. Oxford. pp. 91-111.
9 Mann M. 2011. Power in the 21st Century. Conversations with John A. Hall. Polity Press Ltd., Cambridge.

180 p. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2012.735059

10 Alesina A., Aghion P., Trebbi F. 2008. Electoral Rules and Minority Representation in U.S. Cities.

Quarterly Journal of Economics 123. No. 1. pp. 325-357.

8
Democratic Party, along with the human rights movement of Martin Luther King, that
played a key role in the struggle for the wide participation of national minorities in political
life.
However, conservative elites quickly changed the design of legislation in order to
minimize the influence of minorities on the adoption of key political decisions in cities.
Mississippi legislators were the first to respond, passing 13 laws in January 1966
restricting the electoral influence of African Americans. Then similar actions were taken
in other southern states. By a decision of the Supreme Court in 1969, most of these laws
were repealed.
Even at the beginning of the 21st century, local elections in the United States are
held according to the majority electoral system of a relative or absolute majority in single-
member constituencies. It's a zero-sum game. Such electoral system ensures
representation of the white majority. Voters who did not vote for the winning candidate
have no chance for their representative in the city council.
Social inequalities are manifested in different levels of funding for social programs
in individual states. So, states where the national population structure has a high
proportion of African Americans provide rather modest social support to the population.
Conversely, states where the proportion of African Americans is low have a very wide
range of social assistance measures.
The economic theory of electoral behavior is based on the fundamental work of
Anthony Downs "An Economic Theory of Democracy"11 in which the concept of a left-
right continuum was introduced and the foundations of the concept of rational behavior of
the voter were laid. According to this approach, an individual compares the possible utility
of participating in elections and the costs of voting, if he understands that the possible
benefit is significant, then he goes to the polling station and votes. An important
component of the methodology is the primacy of the interests of the individual over those
of the group. From possible alternatives a, b, c, individual X, in accordance with his idea
of rationality, will choose the one that will be preferable to the other two.
An important complement to the theory of rational behavior of voter E. Downs was
the concept of retrospective voting by M. Fiorina. As part of this approach, it is considered
that the main factor determining the behavior of voters is the situation in the country's
economy. If the work of the government suits voters, then they will support the political
forces that had previously possessed a power resource.
Based on the assessment of the economic situation by the individual, two types of
voting are possible: egocentric and sociotropic. Egocentric voting is relevant for the period
of economic growth, and sociotropic - during stagnation in the economy and aggravation
of the international situation. In an egocentric vote, the voter assesses his own economic
situation, voting for narrow-minded reasons, and in a sociotropic one, the individual can
vote, taking into account not only his interests, but also the social groups that he
represents.
Ordinary Americans did not get rich during the 8 years of B. Obama's presidency,
but rather the opposite. The middle class is not growing, the share of the unemployed is
kept at 5%, they do not pay taxes and receive benefits. America is becoming a country
with increasing economic and social inequalities. Voting in elections accumulates
economic, national, religious, educational, gender divisions, which are not static, but are
constantly developing in society.

11 Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. N.Y., Harper and Row. pp. 124-132.
9
 Lichtman is right again
One of the most famous methods for predicting the results of the US presidential election,
"13 Keys to the White House"12 authored by American political scientist Alan Lichtman and Soviet
mathematician Vladimir Keilis-Borok in the 2016 elections, proved his predictive power again. The
authors of the method managed to correctly predict the winners of nine electoral races.
Alan Lichtman identified 13 large blocks of US socio-political life that have the greatest
impact on electoral preferences. The assessment of each of the blocks is the researcher's answer
in the true/false judgment format. Moreover, the answer "truth" is always interpreted in favor of
the incumbent party.
The basic hypothesis of the model is that the election is an assessment of the activities of
the political party whose team runs the White House. American voters formulate their judgments
on the results of the president's activities during the first 1.5-2 years of his work on Pennsylvania
Avenue. If the work of the current president is not approved by the majority of voters, then the
victory of the opposition party is guaranteed regardless of which candidate was nominated by it.
The table below details the mechanics of the predictive model applicable to the situation on the
eve of the 2016 presidential election.

Table 4. «13 keys to the White house» 2016

Key Description Forecast Truth of
strength Statement
Party Mandate After the midterm elections, the 83 False
incumbent party holds more
seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives than it did after
the previous midterm elections
Contest There is no serious contest for 86 True
the incumbent-party nomination
Incumbency The incumbent-party candidate 71 False
is the sitting president
Third party There is no significant third-party 69 True
or independent campaign
Short-term economy The economy is not in recession 77 True
during the election campaign
Long-term economy Real per-capita economic growth 74 False
during the term equals or
exceeds mean growth during the
previous two terms
Policy change The incumbent administration 82 False
effects major changes in national
policy
Social unrest There is no sustained social 67 False
unrest during the term
Scandal The incumbent administration is 63 True
untainted by major scandal
Foreign/military failure The incumbent administration 68 False
suffers no major failure in
foreign or military affairs
Foreign/military success The incumbent administration 79 False
achieves a major success in
foreign or military affairs
Incumbent charisma The incumbent-party candidate 80 False
is charismatic or a national hero
Challenger charisma The challenging-party candidate 66 True
is not charismatic or a national
hero
Total false claims 8

12Lichtman A.J. 2012. Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc, 212 p.
10
 How does the model work? If the number of "false" judgments is equal to or less
than 5, then the candidate from the ruling party will win the presidential election. If there
are 6 or more "false" judgments, the candidate from the ruling party will lose. In addition
to determining the winner, A. Lichtman and V. Keilis-Borok propose a formula that allows
to predict the level of electoral support for a candidate from the ruling party:

P=36.75+1.84×L,
where L is the number of judgments recognized as "true" for the ruling party.

Since the ruling party has only 5 correct judgments, its candidate should receive
45.95% of the vote. In fact, Clinton's result was 48.2% of the vote. Forecast error – 2.25%.
Next, we'll sort out all 13 keys.
Key No. 1 is the party mandate. On election day, Democrats did not have an
advantage in the US Congress.
Key No. 2 is competition in the ruling party. The Democrats did not have a serious
fight for the nomination.
Key No. 3 is the participation of the incumbent. Incumbent President Barack
Obama could not take part in the elections.
Key No. 4 is the third party. An alternative candidate from the Libertarian Party,
Harry Johnson, performed poorly, receiving 3.3% of the vote. According to Lichtman, the
electoral support of the third candidate of more than 5% is of serious importance for the
election results.
Key No. 5 is the current economic situation. US GDP in 2016 grew by 3.2%. The
consumer price index in annual terms amounted to 1.6%. In November, business created
178 thousand jobs, the unemployment rate fell to a nine-year low - 4.6%.
Key No. 6 is the long-term economic situation. Donald Trump comes to the White
House in favorable conditions for the development of the economy. According to the UN,
US GDP growth in 2017-2018. was at the level of 2.5%13.
Key No. 7 – changes in policy. In his second term, Obama did not make significant
changes in domestic politics.
Key No. 8 is public unrest. The period 2012-2016 is associated with a dramatical
increase in protests of the black population protesting against the engaged actions of
police officers.
Key No. 9 is a scandal. The White House administration was not tarnished in a
scandal that could be compared with Watergate or Monikagate.
Key No. 10 – mistakes in international politics. The Achilles' heel of the
department, headed by John Kerry for four years, were the Mediterranean countries,
Ukraine and Russia. When the regional and global policies of the US are compared, it is
noteworthy that republicans prefer unilateral initiatives and refrain from multilateral
cooperation14. Of particular interest is the list of largest and most relevant geopolitical
risks-2019, compiled by an American consulting agency EuroasiaGroup. It included:
Relations between the USA and China; The influence of domestic policy in the United
States on the foreign policy of the Trump administration15.
Key No. 11 is success in international politics. The Democratic administration
failed foreign policy, damaging relations with Russia, China, and several countries in
Europe and the Middle East.

13
World Economic Situation and Prospects 2016. 47 p. URL:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_archive/2016wesp_ch1_en.pdf.
14
Ultra-Nationalist Policies of Trump and Reflections in the World. 2020. Edited By Hanefi Yazici and Mim Kemal
Öke. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. pp. 68-69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3726/b16947
15
Digital development paradigm: man, society, state: monograph / team of authors; edited by R.V. Pyrma, L.V.
Ryazanova. Moscow: RuScience, 2020. pp. 8-9.
11
 Key No. 12 is the charisma of the candidate from the incumbent party. Hilary
Clinton has no charisma and is not a national hero.
Key No. 13 is the charisma of the candidate from the candidate party. Donald
Trump does not claim the title of national hero or charismatic politician.

2020 US presidential election

A feature of the US presidential election in 2020 was the record number of voters
who voted ahead of schedule (43%). «More than 91 million Americans have voted so far,
as a majority of states are reporting record early voting turnout in the 2020 election»16. At
least 9.7 million Texans – 57% of registered voters – voted early17. Compared to 2016,
the number of states that allowed early voting by mail significantly increased. Due to the
peculiarities of the legislation in three critical states - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and
Michigan, officials are not allowed to begin processing early ballots until election day itself
or just before that day. This may delay the summation of election results throughout the
country. At this time, candidates will exchange mutual accusations and declare their
victory. As a result, political tensions will grow, a high-profile scandal may be repeated
with the recount of ballots in the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The eclecticism of
electoral legislation in the United States requires unification to create a single legal space.
The delay in summing up the election results in 2020 will be a new incentive for the
development of remote electronic voting in the United States, which will replace postal
voting.

Lessons Learned
Lesson one: The transformation of the electorate is becoming one of the key
factors influencing political processes in the United States. The electoral weight of African
Americans, Latinos and Asians in 2016 was 28.5%. While maintaining the existing
dynamics over 10 years, their share in the structure of the electorate can reach 34%, and
by 2050 it will approach 50%.
Lesson two: American society in the first quarter of the 21st century is
experiencing a serious political crisis, which will lead to profound transformations of the
political system, a change in the design of power. Political activists will demand direct
presidential elections, new influential political parties will appear. Hegel's dialectic helps
to understand the meaning of political changes in the United States.
Lesson three: Hilary Clinton's significant superiority over Donald Trump in 2016
in terms of voter votes was not due to higher support of Democratic candidate in the whole
country, but to local super-successes in California and New York. Trump's electoral
support was distributed more evenly throughout the country, which was the key to his
success. In the 2020 presidential election, two elderly candidates for the White House
made many mistakes and created the prerequisites for the appearance of a third force in
the next 10 years.
Lesson four: The importance of election day in the United States is rapidly
declining. More and more voters vote ahead of schedule, which affects the strategy of the
election campaign. The pandemic COVID-19 stimulates the development of remote
voting.

16
Pre-Election Day vote surpasses two-thirds of all 2016 ballots cast. URL:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/31/politics/2020-early-voting-90-million-voted/index.html
17
At least 9.7 million Texans — 57% of registered voters — voted early. URL:
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-early-voting-
numbers/?_ga=2.117326918.1946335661.1604264677-1558920582.1604264677
12
 References

1. Alesina A., Aghion P., Trebbi F. 2008. Electoral Rules and Minority Representation
in U.S. Cities. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123. No. 1. pp. 325–357.
2. Arrow K. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. N.Y.: Wiley. 90 p.
3. Black D. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge Univ. Press.
242 p.
4. Digital development paradigm: man, society, state: monograph / team of authors;
edited by R.V. Pyrma, L.V. Ryazanova. Moscow: RuScience, 2020. 276 p. ISBN
978-5-4365-5828-8
5. Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. N.Y., Harper and Row. 320
p.
6. Fedorov V.I. 2016. Polarization of the electorate in the US Presidential election
(retrospective view). Citizen. Election. Power. No. 2-3. pp. 179–194. (Fedorov V.I.
Polyarizaciya elektorata na vyborah Prezidenta SSHA (retrospektivnyj vzglyad).
Grazhdanin. Vybory. Vlast'. No. 2–3. 2016. pp. 179–194)
http://www.rcoit.ru/upload/iblock/73a/ГВВ_2_3_2016_Поляризация%20электо
рата%20на%20выборах%20Президента%20США%20(ретроспективный%
20взгляд).pdf
7. Fedorov V.I. 2020. Electronic voting and democratic transit. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.11047.78242
8. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Science of Logic. 2010. Edited and translated
by George di Giovanni. 863 p.
9. May K. 1952. A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple
Majority Decision. Econometrica. No. 20. pp. 680–684.
10. McDonald M.P. A Brief History Of Early Voting. URL:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-brief-history-of-
early_b_12240120.html
11. McKelvey R. 1976. Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models. Journal of
Economic Theory. No. 12. pp. 472–478.
12. Lichtman A.J. 2012. Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 212 p.
13. Lipset S.M., Rokkan S. 1990. Cleavage Structures, Party System, and Voter
Alignments. The West European Party System. Oxford. pp. 91–111.
14. Plott Ch. 1967. A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule.
American Economic Review, No. 57. pp. 787–806.
15. Mann M. 2011. Power in the 21st Century. Conversations with John A. Hall. Polity
Press Ltd., Cambridge. 180 p. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2012.735059
16. The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 2020. Translated by H.P. Blavatsky.
2020. 34 p.
17. Ultra-Nationalist Policies of Trump and Reflections in the World. 2020. Edited By
Hanefi Yazici and Mim Kemal Öke. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der
Wissenschaften. 198 p. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3726/b16947
18. At least 9.7 million Texans — 57% of registered voters — voted early. URL:
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-early-voting-
numbers/?_ga=2.117326918.1946335661.1604264677-
1558920582.1604264677
19. Election Analytics University of Illinois. URL:
https://electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu/index.php
20. Nate Silver's Project 538. URL: https://fivethirtyeight.com/

13
 21. Pre-Election Day vote surpasses two-thirds of all 2016 ballots cast. URL:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/31/politics/2020-early-voting-90-million-
voted/index.html
22. The American Presidency Project. URL:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections
23. United States Census Bureau. Electoral profile of the US population. URL:
http://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-
registration/electorate-profiles-2016.html
24. Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections. URL:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php
25. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2016. 47 p. URL:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_archive/2016wesp_ch
1_en.pdf
26. YouGov. What the world thinks. URL: http://today.yougov.com

14

View publication stats