Stakes

Americans go to the polls today to choose the person who will lead them the next four years. As this marvelous exercise unfolds, the rest of the world looks in with great interest. The issues to be settled here affect us all.

Tomorrow, we will know the outcome. Counting the votes is such an efficient process everywhere else except, it seems, the Philippines.

At any rate, the outcomes are a foregone conclusion in most of the 50 American states. Only about six states, at most, matter. They will shift the tide one way or the other.

A day before the balloting, the two candidates — Barack Obama and Mitt Romney — are in a statistical tie. In the US electoral system, however, the popular vote is subordinated to the Electoral College, where seats are distributed according to the number of congressional districts each state has. Whoever wins a state, no matter if that is by a single vote, garners all the electoral seats allocated for that state.

Whoever garners 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency. While the popular vote might be evenly distributed between the two main parties, it is generally conceded that Obama enjoys a clear advantage. This is because he enjoys an edge in Ohio, a state with 18 electoral votes.

Unless Romney pulls a surprise and wins Ohio, it is not likely he could win this tightly fought contest. If Obama carries Ohio, the rest of the so-called battleground states may be evenly split between the two parties and he will still garner the majority of electoral votes.

This great electoral battle is not only concentrated in the handful of swing states, it is tightly focused on the estimated 5% of voters in those states that remain undecided. Ironically, the undecided voters will decide the outcome of this tight race. 

Because of the nature of this contest, much of the resources of the two main parties is devoted to what is called the “ground campaign.” This is the component of the general campaign aimed the getting the party faithful out to actually vote. It involves grassroots party activists making phone calls and doing house calls to bring out the vote.

Obama’s grassroots campaign, manned by youthful activists, demonstrated its power in 2008. Diminishing that advantage are the conservative religious groups, with their disciplined base, supporting the Romney campaign.

In the last leg of the campaign, Romney seemed to enjoy the momentum. Then the superstorm happened. In the aftermath, analysts believe that the Romney momentum was broken and voter disposition swung to Obama’s favor.

Issues

For the rest of the world, two main issues matter the most: policies addressing America’s dangerous drift towards the “fiscal cliff” and those relating to climate change.

The US is the most indebted nation on earth. Economists warn that unless a major change in public financial management happens, the world’s largest economy could reach a tipping point, a “fiscal cliff”, where debt obligations become simply unserviceable.

“Fiscal cliff” concerns generally favored Romney, who advocates deep cuts in public spending to reign in the deficit. Obama and the Democrats are generally disposed towards raising taxes to support public spending. This disposition is seen as flirting with the “fiscal cliff.”

Cuts in public spending, as we see in the austerity measures undertaken by debt-burdened European nations, could worsen the already dismal unemployment figures. It could also mean cutbacks in public investments in education, infrastructure and research. In the long run, this could represent incurable economic costs.

Strangely, climate change was not a prominent issue in the campaign. It was never tackled in the three presidential presidential debates held.

This is understandable. Measures aimed at curbing carbon emissions are seen as harmful to industry and harsh on the consumers. The US never joined international conventions aimed at curbing climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol. There is not much of a constituency for tough policy measures to curb climate change.

When Superstorm Sandy hit the US Northeast, however, climate change leapt to the top of the public agenda. The turn of events is seen as adverse to Romney. As spokesman for American big business, the Republican candidate is not keen on climate change issues.

Conversely, the sudden prominence of climate change issues favors Obama. As a progressive on social and environmental issues, Obama is better disposed towards ecological concerns. Not surprisingly, in the wake of the destructive storm, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, a political independent, endorsed Obama for being the candidate who can better address climate change.

Next to China, the US is the second biggest contributor to the emission of greenhouse gasses that fosters global warming. The rest of the world will welcome a more decisive American attitude towards the perils posed by climate change.

American foreign policy has been likened to a dinosaur. It moves slowly and occasionally turns its head one way or the other, while generally treading on the same direction.

The rest of the world sees Romney as more inclined towards taking unilateral action on the global stage, although there is really no major differentiation between the two candidates on foreign policy issues. If the rest of the world could vote in American elections, however, Obama would win handily. He represents a more modern, multilateral and moderate face of US foreign policy.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world cannot participate in today’s elections. We will know by tomorrow if there is much of a difference between the sensibilities of American voters and sensibilities of the rest of the world.