This coming Tuesday, November 5th, is the last day of voting in the U.S. general election.

If you're a potential voter and haven't cast your ballot yet, you may want to check out our voter information post.

Many people (especially those living outside the U.S.) are looking forward to this election season being over. Unfortunately, Tuesday is not likely to be the end of it, so this post is designed to let people know what to expect moving forward.

• Votes take time to be counted. Many states do not even begin counting their absentee/mail-in ballots until the polls close on Election Day, meaning they will take an especially long time to report and certify a full count. In 2020, fifteen states didn't certify until at least four weeks after the election, and in 2016, some were even later.
• As the results are coming in, changes to the count are normal. The fact that someone is leading at one point and then behind at another is entirely a function of which ballots from which districts are being counted. It doesn't indicate that anything unusual has happened. Moreover, areas with higher population density logically take longer to process their ballots and they tend to lean left, so late shifts leftwards are quite common.
• Based on the polling, this could be one of the closest races in the last 60 years. Don't let anyone tell you it should be a landslide just because they're immersed in communities, social circles, or media silos that unflappably support one side. It's a big country. Just because someone only knows people who support one of the candidates does not mean that candidate will win.
• Polling is an inexact art and discrepancies between polling and voting are normal. Donald Trump has outperformed his polling in both his previous campaigns, but Democrats have outperformed their polling since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. We do not know who will win.
• Similarly, betting odds and prediction markets are not reliable indicators of outcome. Their lines shift based on the incoming bets, not probabilities. (We discussed this in depth a few weeks ago.)
• There will be legal challenges, likely from both campaigns. It's common for campaigns to challenge issues they feel were not handled properly. Some challenges have already been filed and there will assuredly be others up until and after the polls have closed. This is not unusual, though given the political climate, the volume may be higher this year. More claims does not indicate malfeasance or unreliability in the system.
• Legal challenges are not the same as "election denialism," which can be defined as a willingness "to deny the lawfully determined outcome of an election." If a candidate is unwilling to accept the results after the challenges have been filed and adjudicated, that is denialism.
• There may be recounts and runoff elections in some races. Recounts are triggered by small margins of victory and/or successful recount requests, depending on the jurisdiction. There's no such thing as a runoff election in the presidential race, but in some states, there may be runoffs for other offices, depending on the margin of victory.
• The voting age population of the country has been rising every year for over a century, which means that if turnout rates are consistent, more people vote in each successive election. Based on national polling, each major party candidate is projected to garner around 80 million votes this year. And if turnout is high, even the losing candidate could set a new record for most votes received.
• The electoral college system decides who wins, not the popular vote.
• Some election laws have changed since 2020. The Electoral Count Act was revised to clarify the role of the Vice President in the process. Quite a few state laws have changed as well, some more restrictive and some more expansive of the franchise.
• Beware disinformation. Social media, assisted by generative A.I., is being used, mostly by foreign adversaries, to undermine confidence in our elections and to stoke discord, so as to pit Americans against each other. Past incidents have been investigated and proven. Expect even more in the future.
• Among the public, confidence in election administration is slightly higher than in the last couple cycles, but still considerably below historical norms. Among some election experts, however, confidence is high. Here's an interview with some of them.

The point of all this is that we should expect some degree of controversy and we may not know the final results for a while. Strap in, monitor reliable sources like AP News, and be patient.

This is an informational post for our users.

Israel has the 27th largest GDP, sitting between Ireland and the UAE, and above nations like Austria and Singapore.

They have a strong tech sector, on par with Silicon Valley.

Yet, the US provides billions in aid to Israel to assist with the conflict its currently fighting.

Why does a modern wealthy nation need aid in a war?

Why cant it instead purchase any military needs from the people who make it?

Hello, I’m wondering, does anyone have a preferred news brief service. I’d like something that covers national and major international news in an objective way. I like reading the papers but I’d also like a good newsletter to get into for quicker updates. I think there are many companies that do this like the NYT WSJ BBC etc. Do you have a favorite?  

I would like to understand the war involving Israel, Lebanon, and Iran. I already understand the conflict between Israel and Palestine/Hamas, but I didn't realize until a few days ago that Israel was also fighting these other countries.

Why are they fighting? Have they formally declared war, or is this a stand-off with occasional violence? What are likely outcomes of this conflict?

news stories that mention the conflict:

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-strikes-lebanon-gaza-war-10-27-24/index.html

LA Times: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-israel-answers-iran-these-three-questions-about-war-in-the-mideast-remain/ar-AA1sYXEe

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/28/world/israel-gaza-iran-lebanon

I would like to understand which forces are in play after a coup in an african country (I started wondering about it while thinking about the 2023-2024 events in Niger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerien_crisis_(2023%E2%80%932024)).

I understand that there is the new military government, more aligned with Russia and Sahel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Sahel_States), and the old government that would be aligned with western countries and ECOWAS (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/military-interventions-by-west-african-ecowas-bloc-2023-08-04/).

My main question is: Why is the new government in power? What does it depend on? (Some context with https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/what-are-west-africas-options-reverse-nigers-coup-2023-08-04/)

As a first point, instinctively I would say that it depends on what amount of support the current government receives from Russia (https://apnews.com/article/wagner-russia-coup-niger-military-force-e0e1108b58a9e955af465a3efe6605c0) (and possibly China, or other relevant countries?), and at the same time, on which amount of effort western countries would put into restoring the previous government.

While the help from Russia may only depend on the mood of Putin, and on the results of the war in Ukraine, what determines the efforts (or lack of) of western powers?

As a second point, I am wondering about the intervention of Burkina Faso and Mali (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/mali-niger-burkina-faso-sign-sahel-security-pact-2023-09-16/). Do they act more indipendently or accordingly to influences from third parties? And what about the ECOWAS?

Finally, and most importantly, I am wondering about the relationships between Niger and western countries and western companies (I am thinking about uranium mining in particular, since https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uranium-mines-niger-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-2023-07-28/).

On one side, I could think that Niger's new government should want to have bad relationships with western countries, France in particular. The government has been hostile with some western companies (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-goviex-uraniums-stripped-niger-mining-rights-2024-07-05/, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/niger-junta-temporarily-stops-granting-new-mining-licences-2024-01-25/), while pretty collaborative with others (https://www.globalatomiccorp.com/investors/news/news-details/2024/GLOBAL-ATOMIC-ANNOUNCES-NIGER-GOVERNMENT-SUPPORT-FOR-THE-DASA-PROJECT/default.aspx). Why is this happening, and what are the real intentions of the government?

I asked my questions on Niger, but i would be happy to read any interesting consideration about similar situations in other african countries.

Background

The U.S. general election is 10 days away. Voting is not compulsory in the U.S., but it is widely regarded as a civic or moral duty.

I've seen some posts lately questioning if voting is worthwhile or if it can make an appreciable difference in one's life. Participants in this subreddit presumably have a pro-voting bias, but for the sake of neutrality, let's try to set that aside when discussing this issue.

Pros

There are many lists of reasons why one should vote. I found this one, directed mostly at younger voters, to be appealing, because of it's arguments that one's vote is effective and gives people a seat at the table.

Also, the next president will determine some policies that will affect our long-term future, such as Supreme Court appointments and climate change. Even for people who don't vote in the swing states that will likely determine the presidential race, there are down-ballot contests that will decide important questions of law and representation.

Cons

Jason Brennan is a well-known opponent of the idea that one's vote matters, and in fact, of democracy overall as a governing mechanism. Some of his reasons are that the odds of affecting a race are vanishingly small, most citizens are uninformed, and the particular party that gets voted into power doesn't have much of an effect on policy outcomes.

As a student of policy, and especially its cumulative effect, I don't find the first and last of those particularly convincing, though I'm open to other perspectives. I have some sympathy for the second point, though. Not everyone is interested enough in politics to research the issues, or informed enough to understand the nuances. Perhaps there's an advantage to the population not being subject to governance determined by the choices of such people.

Questions

• What's the evidence supporting why someone should or shouldn't vote?
• What are the historical consequences of high or low voter turnout?
• How do democracies deal with the issue of under-informed voters and is their prevalence a reasonable argument against encouraging widespread voting?

Ive been wondering for awhile about if and how organized crime groups may influence politics in the USA. I assume where there is money there is a drive to protect it through political action. Here is a link to an article about organized crime changing the world https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/op-ed-organised-crime-has-affected-politics-but-not-in-the-way-we-have-come-to-expect-now-is-the-time-to-build-a-new-agenda/.
Here is one about types of corruption affecting the world, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/organised-crime-and-corrupting-political-system

But what about in the USA? I see items on influencing labor unions and city politics but has anyone looked at more direct action in national politics like running their own candidate? Or involvement in lobbies? Discussion of the idea would be appreciated. Thank you.

Here in the UK, it has been in the news that Trump has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Labour Party, relating to the Labour Party sending a delegation of volunteers to the USA to help the Harris campaign.

I understand that it’s illegal for US political parties to accept financial donations from foreign interests. I understand that Labour are saying there is no financial donations here - the volunteers pay for their own flights, and accommodation is provided for free by Democrats.

But what I’m really interested in, is whether this kind of thing happens every election cycle, or whether it’s unusual. Do Labour always send volunteers? Do the Tories ever send volunteers to campaign for the Republicans? Have the Tories ever sent volunteers specifically to campaign for Trump, either in this election cycle or the two previous ones?

A year ago, the Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction. What is the status of that construction now? How much wall has been built, or is still being built, under the Biden administration?

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

In August of 2024, Utah filed a public lands lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the federal government can continue hold unappropriated lands within a State indefinitely. What are the legitimate issues of this suit, and why did Utah think it was necessary?

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of Senators, with support from the White House, put forward a bill to address long-standing problems with the U.S. immigration system.

At the time, some Senate Republicans said they wouldn't get a better deal, no matter who won the upcoming presidential election, while the House Speaker called it, "dead on arrival." Progressive Democrats criticized Biden for supporting the bill, which they saw as too restrictive. Donald Trump said he would take the blame if it failed, which it did, upsetting some members of his own party.

"THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS" section of this article summarizes the bill's proposals. This fact check also spells out the provisions and attempts to address misinformation about the bill.

My question is about how well the proposals in the bill matched up with the actual problems facing the U.S. immigration system. There's no way to predict whether it would have worked, but I'd at least like to understand if it was appropriately targeted.

Thanks.

This is a retrospective question about the last two administrations, not a request for speculation about the future.

There's considerable debate over how much control a president has over the economy, yet recently, both Trump and Biden have touted the economic successes of their administrations.

So, to whatever degree a president is responsible for the economic performance of the country, what objective measurements can we use to compare these two administrations and how do they compare to each other?

The results of this year's U.S. General Election will determine the President, Vice President, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 34 of the 100 seats in the Senate, 13 State and territorial Governorships, as well as numerous other State and local offices and ballot measures.

If you are a U.S. citizen who will be at least 18 years old on November 5th, you're probably eligible to vote. Visit this vote.org page to check the rules in your State, register to vote, confirm an existing registration, request an absentee ballot, find your polling location, sign up to be a poll worker, and more.

Early and absentee voting has already begun in many states.

The U.S. elects the president through an electoral college system that assigns electors based on the jurisdiction of the voters. The winner is whichever candidate garners at least 270 votes in the electoral college. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, which casts one vote per delegation. Presently, the Republican Party controls the majority of House delegations.

This year, there are four Presidential candidates on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral college votes. They are:

Kamala Harris
Party: Democratic
Policy page: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

Donald Trump
Party: Republican
Policy page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

Chase Oliver
Party: Libertarian
Policy page: https://votechaseoliver.com/platform/

Jill Stein
Party: Green
Policy page: https://www.jillstein2024.com/platform

A number of other candidates have partial ballot access, meaning not enough to win a majority in the electoral college.

Voting FAQ:

Q: Am I eligible to vote?
A: If you are a U.S. citizen who will be at least 18 years old on the day of the election, you are likely eligible to vote.

Q: Is it too late to register to vote?
A: It depends. A few states' deadlines have passed, others are approaching, and a few allow registration up until the same day as the election. Look up your state's information here.

Q: Where do I vote on Election Day?
A: Voters are assigned a polling place based on the address where they're registered. Find your polling place here or here.

Q: What are the hours of my polling place?
A: Find the opening and closing times for your polling place here.

Q: Do I need to show identification to vote?
A: Most states require some form of identification when you register and/or when you vote. The rules vary state by state. This interactive map will help you determine the requirements for your state.

Q: Can anyone find out how I voted?
A: No. Your vote is confidential. You enter the booth alone and make your choices in private. If your polling place gives some kind of receipt, it will only indicate that you voted, not how you voted.

Q: What if I go to the polls and they tell me I am not registered to vote?
A: Per this site: First, make sure you are at the right polling place. If you are at the wrong polling place they will not have your name on the list of voters. If you are at the correct location and are not on the list, you can still cast a ballot. Ask the poll worker for a provisional ballot. After the polls close on Election Day the state will check on the status of your voter registration and if there was a mistake made. The state must notify you as to whether your ballot was counted.

Q: On Election Day, if I think my rights have been violated, what should I do?
A: Call or text the Election Protection Hotline at 866-687-8683. There will be lawyers on hand to answer Election Day questions and concerns about voting procedures.

Q: Can I vote if I'm out of the country?
A: Yes. U.S. citizens who will be over 18 on election day may vote even if they're traveling, serving, or residing outside the country. The specific rules for overseas voters vary based on a number of factors. More information can be found through the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

Q: Do I have to wait until election day to vote?
A: Probably not. Early voting has begun, or will soon begin, in all states that have it. Check the rules and deadlines for your particular state here, noting that early voting ends before election day in some states.

Q: Do I have to be registered with the party of the candidate I want to vote for?
A: No. In general elections, you can vote for any candidate of any party, no matter your personal affiliation. Depending on the state where you're registered, primary elections may be different, but those have all passed for this cycle.

Q: Do I need to vote on every candidate and issue in order for my ballot to be valid?
A: No. Your ballot is valid even if you decline to vote on specific races or questions. Your vote will still be counted in the contests where you voted.

Q: May I bring notes and/or a sample ballot into the voting booth?
A: Yes, you're allowed to bring notes with you, but some polling places restrict the use of cell phones, so notes should be on paper.

Q: Where can I learn more about the candidates and issues on my ballot?
A: For ballot initiatives, your Secretary of State's office will usually send a voter information booklet and sample ballot, which may also be available on their website. Check BallotReady to find yours.

For comparisons of the candidates, these sites are useful:

• ISideWith, "the world’s most popular voting guide for citizens to find information about elections, political parties, candidates, voting districts and popular political issues in their country."
• Ballotpedia, "the digital encyclopedia of American politics, and the nation’s premier resource for unbiased information on elections, politics, and policy."
• VOTE 411, "Personalized Ballot and Candidate Information."
• We Vote, "a digital voter guide."
• ProCon.org Side-by-Side Comparison Chart.
• Open Secrets, "the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy."

This is an informational post for our users.

I am a gambler. I have a lot of experience with sports betting and betting lines. So I know when it comes to people creating lines, they don’t do it because of personal biases, cause such a thing could cost them millions of dollars.

In fact in the past 30 elections, the betting favourite is 26-4, or almost 87%.

https://www.oddstrader.com/betting/analysis/betting-odds-or-polls/

So if that’s the case, how can all the pollsters say Harris has a lead when all the betting sites has Trump winning?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

Where is the discrepancy? What do betting sites know that pollsters don’t, or vice versa.

I lean conservative and believe in common sense and sound judgment, but I'm looking to understand the 'opposing' perspective.

What specific resources—books, articles, videos, or podcasts—would you recommend to help me grasp the roots and arguments behind liberal viewpoints? I am particularly interested in modern content, but I am also open to classic recommendations that still resonate today.

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful suggestions!

I heard that a few days ago, a foreign aid bill was passed providing 157 Million dollars to Lebanon.

With the Helene crisis unfolding, I became curious about the American infrastructure budget verses the foreign aid budget. I don't know if there would be any data linking any positive or negative correlations between the two, so instead I ask this: Why does America send the most foreign aid compared to any other country, does America profit off of this aid (or is it purely humanitarian), and is there data showing that our foreign aid budget has correlations to any negetive effects. If anyone has any information linking, or showing a lack of link between foreign aid spending and American aid spending that would be greatly appreciated as well.

Hurricane Helene has become one of the deadliest and costliest hurricanes in modern American history. As it happened so close to the presidential election, the federal government's response to Helene has become a big political issue, with Republicans criticizing the Biden administration's response to the hurricane. This has come with some misinformation, e.g. the false claim that hurricane victims are only receiving $750 from FEMA (there are other FEMA programs that help victims in addition to the $750 program). Democrats have largely deflected criticism towards Republicans, making the point that many Republicans voted against increasing FEMA funding right before Helene made landfall. In the midst of this partisan discussion, something that I think has been overlooked is the actual state of the federal government's response to Helene.

At the same time, there may be legitimate concerns about the response to Helene that are being overlooked in partisan discussions. For example, in the aftermath of Helene, FEMA faces the risk of running out of money before the end of the hurricane season, which was also an issue last year and at other points in the past. Earlier this year, FEMA changed its rules to better respond to hurricanes, but those changes came with an estimated $671 million annual cost which FEMA may not be able to afford without more funding. These rules were in effect for Helene, but not for past hurricanes.

These are my questions: What is the actual state of the federal government's response to Hurricane Helene? What have been the biggest shortfalls of the federal government's response to Helene (especially compared to past hurricanes like Idalia, Ian, and Ida)?

A common argument against Donald Trump is that he's a "threat to democracy:"

As president, he attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power by manipulating vote counts and instigating a riot on Capitol Hill. He has also outlined plans for undermining the independence of federal law enforcement while vowing to enact “retribution” on his movement’s enemies.

...putting an insurrectionist back into the Oval Office — after he’s had four years to assemble a cadre of loyalists to staff the executive branch — would pose an intolerably high threat to US democracy...

However, the same article also characterizes the threat as "remote," saying:

It is highly unlikely that a second Trump administration would lead to the death of American democracy, as our nation’s federated system of government makes establishing an authoritarian regime exceptionally difficult.

That view is further supported by historian Niall Ferguson, who argues that Trump's first term diminshes, rather than heightens the threat.

So, what is the evidence for Donald Trump being, or not being, a "threat to democracy"?

Thanks to /u/DonkeyFlan for the idea for this post.

Trump and JD Vance, along with most of the rest of the Republican party, continue to repeat the lie that the 2020 election was "stolen", which Trump first began to tell a few weeks before the 2020 election. As conservative legal experts, Stanford researchers, and many other analysts have shown, these are lies. Not only lies, but transparent lies. From the Stanford report:

At no point did Trump or his allies present even remotely plausible evidence of consequential fraud or illegality.

None of these cases showed any significant vote or election fraud, and most were found to be without any merit. While there's nothing illegal or even necessarily wrong with challenging election results in court, the basis of these challenges were lies, which Trump and the GOP continue to endorse. In part fueled by those lies, the Republican party attempted to overthrow the 2020 election and appoint Trump for a second term. Those events culminated most dramatically on January 6th, when, according to the January 6th committee:

Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for January 6th. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6th to “take back” their country.

However, the attempts to overturn the 2020 election were not limited to the riot on January 6th. The new filing by Jack Smith's team in the case charging Trump with attempting to overthrow the election adds new details, in addition to confirming the findings of the January 6th Committee's report. The plot also was much larger than the riots of January 6th. The indictment and other reporting has detailed the "fake electors" scheme, in addition to attempts to overturn the votes of individual states. Some of these attempts have resulted in criminal convictions. The plot (or plots) to overturn the election were not supported by all Republicans, with key Republican elected officials and judges refusing to comply. Many, however, did, including 147 congress members. Since then, many Republicans who opposed Trump have been replaced with election deniers, and many Republicans who originally condemned January 6th have since recanted.

Multiple plots by Republicans to overturn the 2024 election are already known to be underway. Trump is both the Republican presidential nominee and de-facto leader of the RNC, so these plots aren't just fringe groups, they are backed by the Republican Party and financed by wealthy conservative groups and individuals. While many Republicans have endorsed Harris, in part because of these attempts to overturn the election, nearly all of them are "former" elected officials, or those who are not seeking re-election. 70% of Republican voters claim Biden lost the 2020 election.

Election integrity experts have identified many points of vulnarability in the US election system, presenting a large attack surface rather than a single point of failure. This also allows individual actors to attack races at the destrict, state, and national levels without needing to coordinate directly. In fact, this process is already underway.

...in 2020, “at least 17 county election officials across six swing states attempted to prevent certification of county vote totals.” In 2022, it grew to “at least 22 county election officials” who voted to delay certification in swing states. This year, there have been “at least eight county officials” that have already voted against certifying election results for primary or special elections.

In the event that Republicans try to disrupt and overturn the results of the 2024 Presidential election, what actions are being taken to thwart that effort and preserve democratic norms?

What, if anything, can ordinary citizens do about this?

The cost of housing has increased since 2012, and prices have skyrocketed to record highs since 2020. This has affected the entire housing market, and the majority of housing on the market is now too expensive for middle-income buyers to afford. Affordable housing is a national issue this election cycle.

This article provides a detailed overview of what the Trump and Harris campaigns are each proposing to address the housing crisis. I'd highly recommend reading it before responding to my post. I'll summarize their proposals:

Trump's proposals:

• Undergo mass deportations of illegal immigrants to reduce competition for housing. It's unclear how many housing units this would free up to the market.
• Get rid of regulations that increase the cost of housing construction.
• Free up some federal land for new housing. Here is a map of federally managed land for reference.
• Lower mortgage rates, which are currently much higher than they were before the pandemic.

Harris' proposals:

• Build 3 million new homes in the next 4 years. Currently, more than 1.4 million homes have been built per year since 2019.
• Tax incentives for new starter homes that are sold to first-time homebuyers, and tax incentives for businesses that build affordable low-income rentals.
• Create a $40 billion "innovative housing construction" fund meant to help municipalities get past affordable housing construction roadblocks.
• Allow housing construction on some federal land (both campaigns agree on this broad idea).
• Get rid of regulations that increase the cost of housing construction (both campaigns agree on this broad idea).

My questions: What is the precedent for their proposals around the world? Have their proposals been effective when implemented in other places (e.g. individual states, other countries)?

Here is one article I found explaining what law Tim Walz repealed on this issue and what that has lead to: https://patch.com/minnesota/across-mn/tim-walz-repealed-mn-law-protecting-babies-born-after-failed-abortions

And here is a Guardian article referencing it after the presidential debate: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/14/baby-homicide-illegal-trump

I saw some comments about this bill on social media, specifically people "shaming" 158 Democrats who voted against this bill. I checked on congress.gov and found the legislation page here which after reading seems pretty straight forward. My immediate assumption is it would be a lengthy bill that was complicated or too broad, but that doesnt seem to be the case.

What are the arguments given by those who voted against the bill?

Lindsey Graham visits Nebraska on behalf of Trump campaign to push for electoral vote change
Sen. Lindsey Graham visited Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen, and two dozen Republican legislators to discuss how the state allocates its electoral votes. If Nebraska were to switch to a winner-take-all system, it would almost certainly give former President Donald Trump an extra electoral vote in what is expected to be a tight presidential race.That one electoral vote could prove decisive.

If Vice President Kamala Harris wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but loses every other swing state, she and Trump would be tied at 269 Electoral College votes under a winner-take-all setup in Nebraska with Trump winning the state. In that scenario, the race would be thrown to the U.S. House, where each state delegation would get one vote for president. Republicans hold a majority of delegations and are favored to retain it, even though the House majority could change hands after the November election.

Is there a precedent for a state changing how electoral votes are allocated so close to the election?

And is this a tactic to benefit their preferred candidate? Or is this proposal based on established principles of Graham and Pillen?

Right so I'll try to stick to confirmed information. For that reason I will not posit a culprit.

There has just been an attack whereby pagers used by Hezbolla operatives exploded followed the next day by walkie-talkies.

The point I'm interested in particular is whether the use of pagers as booby traps falls foul of article 3 paragraph 3 of the CCW. The reason for this is by the nature of the attack many Hezbolla operatives experienced injuries to the eyes and hands. Would this count as a booby-trap (as defined in the convention) designed with the intention of causing superfluous injury due to its maiming effect?

Given the heated nature of the conflict involved I would prefer if responses remained as close as possible to legal reasoning and does not diverge into a discussion on morality.

Edit: CCW Article 3

Edit 2: BBC article on pager attack. Also discusses the injuries to the hands and face.

The Trump/Vance ticket seems to be campaigning in this, and I never see any clarification.

Searching the question is tough as well. Fact checks help but not totally

Which policies or actions actually caused the inflation.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-the-president-matter-as-much-as-you-think-ep-404/ experts say the degree to which the choice of president actual matters is a 7 out of 10.

But if we look objectively at the last few presidents, what really changed in the daily lives of the citizens?

what were the changes of consequence to daily life under Trump and under Biden or under Obama or under Bush? Are those changes commensurate with claims about the severe consequences of either current candidate winning? https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/local-government/jim-clyburn-1876-presidential-election-aiken-democrat/article_310951f4-6d49-11ef-b8ed-7bbe61a74707.html

Tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern time is the first, and so far only, scheduled presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. This megathread is a place to discuss it.

Please remember the rules for commenting on this subreddit, summarized in the stickied comment. They're different from many political discussion forums.

In the US, the debate will be broadcast on ABC, C-SPAN, and probably quite a few other channels. It will also be streamed on the ABC and C-SPAN YouTube channels. The debate is slated to last for an estimated 90 minutes.

Unfortunately, we didn't have enough available moderators tonight to run the live fact-checking thread we've hosted in the past (we'll be putting out a call to bring on more moderators soon), but PolitiFact is doing live fact-checking on a variety of platforms.

This thread is now locked. If you have specific questions about issues discussed in the debate, we invite you to review our submission rules and make a new post. Thanks to everyone who participated.

This article discusses what kinds of economic outcomes a President can affect and when they tend to manifest. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-presidents-economic-decisions-matter-eventually/

What is the evidence that either major US party induces lagged effects on the economy? https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780191792236.001.0001/acref-9780191792236-e-298

Is there established evidence that the decisions one party makes while in power tend to - in the long run - induce the kinds of effects that could, at any given moment in time, make it superficially look like the incumbent party is responsible for the current state of affairs, when in fact the state of affairs is a consequence of one or more lagged processes?

In the context of my question, discussion or information about whether one major party prefers one set of indicators to the others (and why) also interests me. In those cases, I'm interested in why people would favor some indicators more than others other merely because it helps defend their own party or economic theory.

Thank you in advance for any input!

Background

The US dollar is known as the world's reserve currency. All major commodities are traded in USD, even between nations that don't use that currency. This kind of monetary hegemony has given the US a significant advantage in protecting its overall hegemony, which in turn has bred some resentment.

A group of countries known as BRICS (originally for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now also including Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE) is promoting the use of an alternate currency or currencies in bilateral trade, threatening the US dollar's dominant global position. Some other countries are amenable to the idea. Bilateral trade between Russia and China is already almost completely dedollarized.

In a campaign speech yesterday, Donald Trump pledged to make it too costly for countries to shift away from using the US dollar, adding a new pillar to his tariff platform:

“You leave the dollar and you’re not doing business with the United States because we are going to put a 100% tariff on your goods.”

Questions

• What are the pros and cons of such a move?
• Is the US dollar's status as a reserve currency under significant threat?
• What kinds of blowback and retaliatory measures are typical with high import tariffs like this?
• Is the dollar's dominance of significant enough interest to Americans that weathering any negative consequences of such a policy move would be worth it?

RFK asked to get his name off the ballot in North Carolina which was denied by a judge

The North Carolina elections agency is appealing to keep RFK Jr. on ballot despite RFK ending his presidential candidacy and endorsing Trump

What are the benefits and drawbacks for the North Carolina voter of keeping an option on the ballot that isnt running for president?

Why keep a name on the ballot that isnt running for president? What reason exists?