More than ever before, Colombia has been intimately linked to the United States electoral process. Next Tuesday, November 3, citizens of the North American powerhouse will decide who their leader will be for the next four years, in one of the most unusual races in history, constrained by the limitations and changes proposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, by the particularities that characterize each candidate, and by the discourse that has been managed on this occasion.
Colombia has not been as discreet as usual when it comes to the US electoral landscape. In the second commission of the Senate, a legislative body focused on international relations and foreign policy, Senator Iván Cepeda called for a political control debate, which was attended by Foreign Minister Claudia Blum. According to Cepeda, the country's ambassador to the United States, “Pacho” Santos, offered direct support to Trump's campaign and has been creating opportunities with Colombians residing in the state.
Former President Juan Manuel Santos has also stated that government officials are “offering help” for Trump's reelection in the United States and warned that such behavior “is an illegal act.” On the other hand, politicians like Gustavo Petro, María Fernanda Cabal, and Carlos Felipe Mejía have continuously voiced their electoral preferences in the North American country. In fact, Cabal has gone a bit further, associating American politicians like Kamala Harris (Biden's running mate) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with anarchism, and expressing her concern that a virtual Biden administration would not intervene in Colombia in the face of military aggression from Venezuela.
“The United States and Colombia are close friends, and close friends speak honestly. That is why, as elected representatives of the United States, we have a very clear message for our Colombian counterparts: show us the respect of staying out of our elections... For the good of our two countries, this type of behavior has to end now,” Democrats Gregory Meeks and Rubén Gallego stated in an opinion piece published by CNN.
The U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, Philip S. Goldberg, also made a strong statement referring to Colombian politicians and urged them to avoid getting involved in American elections. His first statement on the matter, made through the U.S. Embassy's Twitter account in Colombia, was as follows: “...the success of U.S.-Colombia relations over many years has been based on bipartisan support. I urge all Colombian politicians to avoid getting involved in U.S. elections.”.
This bipartisan support refers to the neutrality that Colombian presidents have maintained towards United States governments, regardless of the political party in power in the White House. Thus, former president Álvaro Uribe held meetings, during his eight years in government, with both Bush (Republican) and Barack Obama (Democrat). Although under Santos's administration, Colombia brought issues such as drug legalization to the international stage, deviating from U.S. interests, the President ultimately opted to resume the intense fight against drugs. This latter point demonstrates how the country's foreign policy remains aligned with the “North Star,” in friendly terms.
It seems that the country's political actors should manage the euphoria generated by these upcoming elections in a more diplomatic and discreet manner, in order to maintain good relations with Colombia's most important international ally. Especially since anything can happen at this moment.
What will happen on Tuesday?
Early voting in the United States allows millions of citizens to cast their ballots before November 3rd. The landscape is not as clear as many believe. As is well known, elections in states like California or Texas have been decided since the beginning of the campaign, as these have been Democratic and Republican strongholds for nearly thirty years. Thus, the election is decided by the so-called swing states swing states, which cannot predict their electoral behavior because they vote both ways.
On average, Trump is leading in Florida by a margin of less than 11 percentage points. Just as in the 2000 election, when Bush secured a Pyrrhic victory over Al Gore, this state could prove decisive in this presidential election. Pennsylvania is also a battleground. Biden’s lead over Trump has narrowed to just over four percentage points, while his home city, Philadelphia, is the scene of protests over police brutality.
If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, even by a narrow margin, they take all the Electoral College votes (only two states divide them proportionally). In the end, the winner is whoever has the most Electoral College votes (at least 270). In this regard, it's possible for a situation like 2016 to occur, where Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, securing several swing states.