Don’t adjust your sets: voting habits may change the colour of unfolding events

Far more Americans have voted early than ever before, by post and in person. Picture: AFP

If within a few short hours of polls closing on the east coast of America it looks as though Donald Trump is on course for victory, ­remember that it might be a red mirage presaging a blue shift.

This election has been transformed by coronavirus and the voting process is no exception.

Far more Americans have voted early than ever before, by post and in person.

According to the University of Florida’s elections project more than 95.4 million votes had been cast by Monday morning, equivalent to 69 per cent of the total number in 2016.

Yet in several crucial swing states postal votes, which comprise just over 60 per cent of those early votes, will not be counted until after the in-person votes.

In other states, which have been able to process postal votes before election day, the reverse will be true and the early votes will be the first to be declared.

Crucially, early voting is widely agreed to be heavily Democratic in this election.

This means that the vote tallies published early could be misleading in some of the most hotly contested states, in both directions.

But it is the idea of a red mirage in the Rust Belt that is most pressing, and is the subject of much discussion among Democrats who fear that it will allow Mr Trump to falsely claim victory.

In Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin postal votes cannot begin to be counted until election day. In Pennsylvania, which both sides see as crucial to their hopes of victory, counting could last for days.

Postal votes can be accepted for up to three days after the election as long as they were put in the post on or before election day.

University of Virginia political analyst Kyle Kondik said: “Something I’m prepared for on election night is for Pennsylvania to look more Republican than it may actually be, whoever ends up winning the state.”

That is exactly what Mr Trump may seize on to declare victory.

At recent rallies he has questioned the idea that the election ­result might not be declared on the night, even though election results are never formally declared on the night.

During the first presidential ­debate in September the President argued strongly against mail-in voting, claiming without evidence that it was ripe for fraud and suggesting mail ballots may be ­“manipulated”.

“This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen,” he said.

Should Mr Trump make such a declaration on election night, ­expect Joe Biden to be fast out of the traps disputing it.

Then it is a question of how far they each push it. But it is far from out of the question that specific counts in close states could be tested legally. In 2000, when the ­Supreme Court in effect decided that ­George W. Bush was the winner of the election, Al Gore conceded straight away.

If it comes to it, who would bet on the same happening this time?

The Times