Political outlook

Will the US election end in political chaos?

  • A deadlock in the polls, election scepticism, polarisation and recent political violence have all set the stage for a chaotic ending to the US presidential election on November 5th.
  • Regardless of who wins, we expect it to be a close race and that the result will be contested, raising the risk of political instability and violence.
  • A decisive victory for either candidate via a sweep of the battleground states would facilitate a smoother transfer of power, although we assign a lower probability to this scenario.
  • We believe the least likely is a tie in the Electoral College vote, which would yield a contentious and drawn-out process of Congress selecting the winner.

With the polls in deadlock and election scepticism rising again, a disorderly and contentious ending to the US presidential election remains a very real possibility. Intense polarisation means that nearly half of US voters will probably be dissatisfied with the election result when their preferred candidate loses. Those feelings could translate into violence, with the 2021 assault on the US Capitol and a spate of recent attacks on political figures serving as alarming precedents. This article outlines three scenarios for how we expect the immediate aftermath of the presidential election to play out.

A close result is contested, raising risks of political instability and violence (70% probability)

We assume that the election will be decided by a handful of battleground states, where the margins of victory will be extremely slim. This occurred in the 2020 presidential election, when margins of less than 1 point determined the electoral vote in three of the seven battleground states: Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. The margins in the remaining battleground states (Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania) were not much higher, between 1 and 3 points. A similar result appears likely this year. The Democratic vice-president, Kamala Harris, and the Republican former president, Donald Trump, remain locked in a statistical tie in these states, and polling trends suggest that this will not change before Election Day.

Tight battleground-state races and delays in vote counting, which we believe are inevitable, mean that there is unlikely to be a clear winner on Election Day. Mail-in ballots, which traditionally skew Democrat and could prove decisive in the most competitive races, pose particular challenges. Pennsylvania, which has the most electoral votes of any battleground state, will not start processing mail-in ballots until Election Day, according to state law; the same is true of Wisconsin. However, delays are likely even in states where early processing is legal, owing to the time required to count these ballots and any other state regulations that could slow the process further. Arizona, for example, allows voters to mail ballots as late as Election Day, making it unlikely that these votes will be counted until well after the polls close. Any ambiguity around the election result will spark voter distrust and conspiracy theories, as occurred in 2020, particularly if vote counting drags on for days (if not weeks), which is possible. Tensions and uncertainty will rise further if Mr Trump declares himself the winner prematurely, as he did in 2020 before ultimately losing, which we expect him to do again. Online disinformation, which remains problemic, will create additional confusion.

Should Mr Trump lose the election, we expect that he would challenge the result, with disruptive and potentially violent consequences. He has repeatedly stated that only voter fraud could cause him to lose, laying the foundation for Republican voters and lawmakers to question a win by Ms Harris even before the election happens. He and his affiliates have also filed more than 100 lawsuits in the battleground states to challenge a potential loss pre-emptively, citing baseless claims, including over non-citizens voting. Legal challenges, which we expect would be unsuccessful, could still delay the process of states and Congress certifying the results by their respective December and early January deadlines. However, we believe it unlikely that this would prohibit Ms Harris from taking office by Inauguration Day in late January, given that recent laws and legal precedent have substantially narrowed the prospects for state officials, Congress and judges (including the US Supreme Court) to challenge and overturn election results. A more likely outcome is that Mr Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud prompt protests by his supporters in state capitals and Washington DC, which could turn violent. However, we believe that the risk of a large-scale incident is limited, in part owing to better preparedness by police and security officials. Regardless, we would not expect Mr Trump to attend Ms Harris’s inauguration, which would keep political tensions and voter distrust elevated during her presidency.

A narrow election loss for Ms Harris could prompt Democrats to challenge the results, but only if there is a clear and credible pretext, which we do not consider likely. Destruction of ballot boxes, as occurred recently in Oregon and Washington, or voter intimidation at polling stations, which remains a risk, could provide grounds for a legal challenge. However, neither of these irregularities are likely to be pervasive, limiting the prospects for Democrats to pursue legal recourse for these reasons. A more likely scenario is that Democrats request a vote recount in battleground states with extremely tight results. However, state rules would prevent this from disrupting election certification timelines, and we would not expect Ms Harris to push for further action if a recount confirmed the original result, as usually happens. We would expect that Democratic leaders, including Ms Harris, would accept the certified results and that she would attend Mr Trump’s inauguration, in line with tradition. This would encourage Democratic protests, which would be likely after a Trump win, to stay peaceful. However, the risks of violent demonstrations would rise if Mr Trump were to impose draconian restrictions on civil rights, women’s healthcare rights, LGBT+ rights and immigrant rights, as he has threatened to do. 

Clear election win facilitates smooth transition of power (25% probability)

Although unlikely, it remains possible that the election’s winner will sweep the battleground states by large margins. This would contradict recent polling trends, but could happen if pollsters undercount support for the winning candidate or if undecided voters move disproportionately in a single direction. A decisive victory would make it difficult for the losing side to challenge the result, particularly in a way that jeopardises the certification process. We would expect Ms Harris to accept such a loss immediately. Mr Trump would still probably challenge such a result if he loses. However, we would expect his election denial claims to lack credibility, even in the eyes of his supporters, discouraging large-scale protests, particularly violent ones.  

Tied electoral vote leads to a protracted and contentious winner-selection process (5% probability)

A tie in the Electoral College vote, which is our least likely scenario, would be the most disruptive outcome. Such a result lacks recent precedent, having occurred only once in US history, in 1824. Although very unlikely, this could hypothetically occur if the election results radically depart from recent polling trends, for example if third-party candidates outperform or non-battleground states flip unexpectedly.

In this situation, the US constitution dictates that the incoming House of Representatives (the lower house) and Senate (the upper house) vote to choose the president and vice-president respectively. Our baseline assumption that the next Congress will be divided, with Democrats retaking the House and Republicans winning back the Senate, both by thin margins, would present a possibility of Congress pairing Ms Harris with Mr Trump’s vice-presidential pick, JD Vance. Such an outcome would be highly controversial, if not entirely unworkable amid a highly polarised political climate. However, other scenarios are also possible, particularly as a surprise Electoral College tie could mean that the congressional elections yield different results than we expect. Special voting rules in the House, whereby the presidential vote occurs via state delegations rather than voting among the 435 House members, creates additional uncertainties. Regardless of how the vote plays out, we would expect the result to be highly contentious, sparking partisan resentment, voter dissatisfaction and potentially political and social unrest. 

The analysis featured in this article can be found in EIU’s Country Analysis service. This integrated solution provides unmatched global insights covering the political and economic outlook for nearly 200 countries, enabling organisations to identify prospective opportunities and potential risks.