Polling and the Weather Forecast: A Lesson in Uncertainty

Polling is like the weather forecast: it offers a range of outcomes. It may seem unlikely to rain where you are, but it’s still possible, just as somewhere nearby could stay completely dry. Polling models work the same way, providing a range of possibilities, with the most likely outcome somewhere in the middle. However, journalists often don’t report or explain this range, and some polling companies don’t fully address it either.

When the herd (the electorate) moves, it usually moves together—yet occasionally, it splinters, adding layers of uncertainty. This unpredictability is what allows people to sometimes defy the odds and come out on top. The margin of error means the actual result could land on either side of the median outcome or even on the outer edges of what’s possible. Think of it as science fiction: in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, when travelling across space, you might theoretically turn into an apple. Highly unlikely, but technically possible!

What Do the Current US Election Models Tell Us?

So, how does this translate to the current U.S. election landscape?

The current model from FiveThirtyEight has Harris at 268 electoral votes and Trump at 270. Just a few days ago, it was the other way around. It’s a remarkably close race, one we haven’t seen for decades. In practice, this means the herd is taking different paths, with some states following separate trajectories from others. Why? This could be due to local issues or unique demographics at play, which are often difficult to model accurately.

Certain demographic and local factors influence swing states differently, adding complexity to polling models. For example, Arizona’s growing Latino voter base leans conservative in some areas, potentially benefiting Trump. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s situation is unique, with its declining manufacturing jobs and large Arab population possibly making it more competitive. In other states, recent events or changing demographics play a big role; a hurricane’s impact on voters or a high Black population could sway support towards Harris, especially given her profile as a Black female candidate. Each of these factors highlights why swing states can defy broader polling expectations and swing differently depending on local issues.

The Swing State Landscape and Possible Outcomes

Based on current numbers, swing states could align—or they might diverge entirely. Swing voters typically follow similar trends, but today’s models suggest they’re all over the place. The final result could be a landslide, a narrow victory, or a razor-thin margin. The most unlikely outcome is a tie, which would be decided by Congress. The only time this happened was in 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

In practical terms, we could see anything between 320 and 270 electoral votes for either side, making predictions a toss-up due to how close it is. And despite the possible range of outcomes, most commentary doesn’t explore these diverse possibilities in-depth, though they should.

Swing states, which often switch between the two main parties, are pivotal in deciding elections. These states can shift as demographics evolve—much like music tastes changing over time. Currently, there are seven key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nevada. Pennsylvania holds the biggest prize in terms of electoral college votes, which is why it’s often rated the most crucial.

At the moment, Harris has more paths to the White House than Trump. In fact, nine out of twenty-one possible routes for Harris don’t require Pennsylvania, whereas only five out of twenty-one for Trump don’t need Pennsylvania. Care to guess the tipping point state?

Current polls suggest a 51-56% chance of Trump winning and a 49-45% chance for Harris. This modelling assumes only seven states are in play. I’d say Harris has the advantage based on the seven swing states, yet betting on either side winning is difficult due to the close margins. The only thing we know for certain is that results may not be known for days if trends follow recent averages. The final outcome will either take one candidate to the White House or the jailhouse—but we’re likely heading to the courtroom first.

In a race this close, every voice truly counts. So, whatever the forecast, cast your vote—because, in the end, even a small shift in the herd can tip the balance.

America and British politics what the differences?

American politics feels rather alien to me, with extreme levels of partisanship. Cooperation is dying, replaced by a desire to vote only along party lines. Why is that? I’ll come back to that later. The total control of two parties over the political system makes it nearly impossible for anyone else to break in. Political appointments cover every level of the executive, including the courts. The Supreme Court now has a Christian conservative supermajority, and courts overall lean conservative, shaping the justice system in profound ways. Not only that, but the parties also control the writing of election rules and, by design, make it difficult for anyone outside the two main parties to get on the ballot. This level of control lets them game the system in their favour, using gerrymandering to manipulate district boundaries. It’s all about packing voters who don’t support you into one district while splitting others to maximise your own chances. Urban and city areas, which should have more representation due to larger populations, are ignored. As a result, more attention is given to the small minority who could deselect you rather than the loyal base who will vote for you anyway.

Given the size of America, the amount of money spent on election cycles is staggering. Both Harris and Trump combined are projected to spend somewhere around $15.9 billion. Then there’s the religious influence, which holds considerable power in what’s supposed to be a secular country. Christian conservatives on the Supreme Court are pushing their ideological views, particularly on issues like abortion. Christian nationalism has gone mainstream on the right side of American politics. Some are pushing to change that, linking the church to the state and dismantling the secular order. Briefly, these are some of the things that make the system feel strange and distant to me.

Compared to British politics, while the two main parties hold sway, it’s not total control. The number of voters with strong partisan views is declining rapidly. Cooperation still exists, even in a winner-takes-all system, and people don’t always vote along party lines. Other parties have a real shot—currently, the UK has four major political parties. The last election saw a range of parties perform well across the country. There are far fewer barriers stopping new parties or individuals from standing. In the last hundred years, we’ve gone from two major parties to three, then four, and arguably five if you count certain regional parties. You could even say we have five and a half major players now. These include the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Reform, and the Greens, plus regional parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The last two are nationalist parties with significant regional influence. After the 2024 election, independent candidates have risen due to the cynicism embedded in politics. While smaller parties still struggle with funding, local campaigns have been successful.

The newest party on the block runs in as many constituencies as possible to maximise funding and target winnable seats. Speaking of funding, the UK has strict limits—you can only spend around £34 million ($44 million). Political appointments are often cross-party, and the courts maintain their independence. Privately educated individuals do make up the majority in certain professions like the courts or media. Certain areas remain separate from the executive altogether. When it comes to writing the rules for elections, parties actually talk to each other and reach an agreement. And on that note, electoral boundaries are out of politicians’ hands, managed by independent bodies. Boundaries are based on population size and are equalised across the board.

We Brits have a sense of fair play, though I’ll admit there have been recent attempts to undermine that, with tactics like voter ID. Voters will remember rule-breaking and breaching that spirit of fair play. As for religious influence, the only real presence left is in the House of Lords, and even that’s weakening. Some on the right have tried to push a Christian viewpoint, but that largely goes against public opinion. The UK is largely secular these days, with the number of people identifying with religion in steady decline. Bishops in the Lords act as a moral voice, but in practice, they don’t have enough votes to swing decisions.

We may share the same language (sort of), but the differences in how we approach politics even show in how we run elections. In the US, elections seem like an unending cycle. Campaigning starts years in advance, dominating political life. Debates, attack ads, constant rallies, and endless streams of fundraising—it’s like a political marathon that never ends. In contrast, here in the UK, elections are much more condensed and far less consuming. Campaigns last about six weeks from the moment Parliament is dissolved to election day. None of this dragging it out for two years or more. It’s a sprint, not a marathon, and frankly, I think most of us prefer it that way.

And then there’s how we count votes. In the US, it’s like a patchwork quilt—some states use electronic voting, others rely on paper ballots, and each state seems to have its own rules on how and when to count them. Here, it’s much simpler. Everyone follows the same rules: paper ballots, counted on the night, with results typically announced by the next morning. None of this drawn-out waiting, recounts, or legal battles that drag on for weeks. We’ve streamlined it to the point that the system, while not flawless, works efficiently. Results are declared on the night, with no provisional votes hanging over our heads for days.

There’s even a sense of theatre when it comes to declaring results. Unlike in the US, where numbers trickle in and results are announced gradually, here, all the candidates stand together on stage as the result is read out. It makes for some pretty unforgettable moments in British political history—triumph and defeat all wrapped up in a single scene. You’d be hard-pressed to find an American election night with quite that much drama in one room.

I know one American friend will be reading this and spilling their coffee! But honestly, the differences are staggering. Small, minor differences add up pretty quickly to a completely different climate. That leaves us with two final differences: first, the timing of elections in the UK is in the hands of the prime minister, compared to the US presidential election being locked in place and unable to be changed. The final point is how centralised the UK system is—local government is far weaker compared to America. They lack the ability to raise revenue and so many other powers. In America, even cities can borrow money and raise taxes. After decades of weak local government, this is slowly starting to change in the UK.

So why did I write this blog? Well, I wanted to expand on a conversation I had with a friend and reflect on the nuanced differences between both systems. Often, these differences are missing in American and British media analysis. It comes from a point of view that ignores the contrasts, trying to make the systems mirror images of one another. That’s what I would consider lazy journalism and uninformed. Like in America, it’s still a rich man’s game in politics, but we’re just less flashy with the cash.