We\u2019ve heard and read various analyses of the issues that contributed to the results of the most closely contested and polarized election in U.S. history, an election that kept the entire country and the world on the edge and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Among these issues are the U.S. electoral system, which uses indirect voting, meaning that the popular vote at the national level doesn\u2019t reflect voters\u2019 composition by state, who are the ones that finally elect the president in the electoral college. In addition, early voting by mail, massive in this case due to the pandemic, made the count more cumbersome and complex. Finally, the electorate\u2019s polarization, fostered by a leader who made a mockery of the foundations of the liberal democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The U.S. bipartisan tradition has always had a dual tension: Democrats and Republicans gravitate around two political cultures and their leaders are in charge of moderating them when competing for the presidency. However, everything changed with Donald Trump, who kicked the chessboard, radicalized the game and enhanced the populist factor, acting as the leader of the American people that despise traditional politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For this reason, the Trump vs. Biden contest was transformed into a crossroads with a different color, nearly existential, in which deeper and more fundamental questions were put to the test. The two sides that competed for the soul of “the deep America” in these elections showed a striking parity of forces. There was no clear winner or a resounding defeat, and it is now possible to see this in the future composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives, with notable parity and diversity. The difficulties that delayed the counting and hence the election of who has finally won the presidential race have left some lessons to learn. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nsomething that has to do with what distinguishes\u2013or should distinguish\u2013democracies from oligarchic or autocratic regimes: The uncertainty principle.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
For now, something that has to do with what distinguishes\u2013or should distinguish\u2013democracies from oligarchic or autocratic regimes: The uncertainty principle. Predictable rules, uncertain results. Something that must be resolved quantitatively, counting each vote, and counting again, should there be any doubts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But even if this becomes complicated, as happened with this election, a qualitative dimension occurs in the final resolution. Leaders\u2019 reaction to this forced lengthening of the count; people\u2019s activism on the streets and near the voting centers demanding respect for the popular vote; the role of the media; social media replicating or neutralizing fake news and other contested facts; the partisan lobbies and judicial intervention ultimately tarnishing or guaranteeing the validity of the count. <\/p>\n\n\n\n