Voters in the United States will cast their votes on November 5 to elect their 47th President, although some states have electoral laws that allow early voting, both by mail and in person. American voters who work outside the country, such as diplomatic and military agents, are also allowed to mail in their votes, some of which would be counted even after the actual voting day, depending on the obtaining electoral laws of the various states.
With only a few days to the vote, most political analysts and pundits across the aisle concur that the this year’s presidential election is too close to call, with campaigns finally narrowed to the “battle-ground” states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. It could go either way.
It was the ingenuity and foresight of the US founding fathers in enacting the “Five Great Compromises” during the constitution making conference in Philadelphia, in 1789, that gave rise to the Electoral College as a buffer between the states and the federal government, enabling the US constitution to pass the test of time.
Although the US presidential candidates campaign to win the majority votes in the race to the White House, the presidential winner is eventually determined by the Electoral College, a kind of proportional vote, which “moderates” the elections of each state and vote as a “college” for their preferred candidate.
In other words, when Americans vote for presidential candidates, they actually vote for the 538 electors who make up the Electoral College. These Electors cast their votes for president based on how their state’s population votes, and the result is then certified by the US Congress before the president is sworn in.
There is one elector for each member of a state’s delegation in the US Congress — 435 from the House of Representatives, allocated according to state populations, and 100 from the Senate, based on equal representation, with each state having two senators regardless of its size or population.
Thus, for example, a large state like California with a huge population, and the world’s fifth largest economy, has 52 Congressional Representatives, owing of course to its population, and gets 54 Electoral College votes, but has two senators just like Delaware, a comparatively smaller state. And, a sparsely populated State like Wyoming which has only one Congressional Representative and two senators, gets three Electoral College votes.
Polarised international system
The District of Columbia, Washington DC, the nation’s capital, is not a state but is allocated three electors. It is also noteworthy that the electors cannot be members of Congress.
What this means is that a candidate may win the majority or popular vote but fail to garner the required 270 Electoral College votes. This was the case for the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton who won the popular vote by millions against the Republican Party candidate Donald Trump but failed to get the 270 votes.
There is, however, the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College of 269 votes each, which would mean that the election is taken to the House of Representatives to vote and unlock the tie, but this has not happened since 1800, and is considered to be very unlikely.
The complexities of the electoral system aside, this election is taking place at a time when the world is faced with a geo-politically tense and polarised international system, with two active wars raging — between Russia and Ukraine, and the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza that has spilled over into Lebanon. The US is involved in both conflicts. There are also a number of civil wars around the world, all with ramifications in the campaigns.
Besides, there have been concerted efforts by other great powers, especially a resurgent Russia and rising China, to undercut the US’ hegemonic status to create a multi-polar international system. Several ambitious middle-level powers, such as Brazil, Qatar, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with relatively strong voices, are also rising and are sometimes at variance with the US. The recently concluded BRICS conference in Russia is a manifestation of such efforts.
Kenya has been a key strategic ally of the US since our independence. During the peak of the Cold War, especially, Kenya stood firmly as a US ally, working together to contain the Soviets in the wider Eastern Africa region, which was largely leaning towards the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its ideology.
Kenya has benefited from the US military assistance programme; the PL 480 Food Aid programme; and a brokerage of soft loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to settle balance of payments deficits and debts.
Cordial diplomatic relation
Kenya has also been a beneficiary of the US President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief that has funded HIV/AIDS and other health programmes, as well as the Africa Growth Opportunity Act that allows duty-free export of certain goods to the US. Kenya and the US have also been cooperating in the ongoing war against terrorism, particularly against the Al-Shabaab terror network.
Thus, the government and people of Kenya, like a majority around the world, are seized of the ongoing US presidential campaigns and the implications of the outcome.
It is important to remember that Kenya and the US just recently celebrated 60 years of cordial diplomatic relations, with the US according Kenya a rare historic State visit to the White House, the first one for a sitting African Head of State in 16 years.
The consequent designation of Kenya as a Major Non -Nato Ally ( MNNA) the first and only one in Sub-Saharan Africa, was indeed a belated but nevertheless most welcome icing on the cake.
Kenya will, therefore, be very keen to know what the Africa policy of the next president of the US will be, who will the Assistant Secretary for Africa, whether she or he will be from the Africa bureau, an “outsider”, or from the many Washington DC -based Africa caucuses and think-tanks, and how this will impact the over six- decades of friendly diplomatic and bilateral relations, especially in Kenya’s new strategic position as an MNNA.
As a MNNA, Kenya stands to gain immensely from the US in an array of sectors including national security, military, financial, trade and economic development. Kenya can now, under this status, procure “depleted uranium ammunition” as well as be eligible for “enhanced military assistance” from the US through loan schemes and programmes. Kenya will also be considered as a priority recipient of excess US defence articles.
These election campaigns as would be expected, because of the high stakes involved, have been vigorous and intense, pitting incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party against former President Trump.
Candidates’ foreign policies
Both candidates have diametrically opposed visions for the US, and espouse divergent policy positions and approaches on almost all the domestic and foreign policy fronts.
Mr Trump advocates for what might pass for a rigid isolationist foreign policy and a nationalistic domestic agenda, with the campaign mantra being “Making America Great Again”. He promises to impose high tariffs on imports, cut down taxes to incentivise domestic investments and thereby create more jobs and reign in on inflation, close the southern borders and deport all the illegal immigrants, and decree a death penalty for any illegal immigrant who kills an American citizen.
VP Harris, on the other hand, has campaigned on a return to national unity, more or less like a “coalition of parties” against Trump, urging the nation to rise above violent divisions and partisan politics. To “stop pointing fingers and start locking arms” for a future of shared responsibility; lower health costs, affordable housing; and a restoration to normalcy in global political, economic and trade relations with traditional US allies.
However, it is clear that whoever wins the November 5 elections will have to focus on domestic priorities and pursue foreign policies on which they have campaigned, to protect and enhance the US’ national interests.
Although it has not been well pronounced in their campaigns, both candidates’ foreign policies have tinges of US exceptionalism and manifest destiny, and both have vowed to protect America’s leadership as a Super Power in a world that is increasingly multipolar, especially in the economic and technological spheres, and to ensure that no contending power comes closer.
It remains to be seen whether the next administration will give sufficient attention to Africa, particularly Kenya, without the usual hubris that often characterises US policy towards the continent. Typically, a comprehensive and strategic response tends to occur only when America’s national interests are directly threatened. Clarity on this approach may emerge by mid-2025, following the nomination and confirmation of new officials in the Africa Bureau of the State Department.
Finally, given the US’ established “playbook” and “rhythm”, it will be crucial for Nairobi—and its people in Washington DC— to stay prepared to accurately analyse, assess, interpret and advise on unfolding scenarios and events following the election results. This readiness will enable the development of a tactical approach for engaging with the new administration and its team in town.
Mr Ogego is a former Kenyan ambassador to the United States and is currently a tutorial fellow and PhD research candidate in the department of Diplomacy and International Studies at the University of Nairobi.
