What are the mid-term elections?

Tuesday is election day in the United States. Voters from across the country will go to the polls for what are called "mid-term elections" and choose from thousands of congressional officials to members of school boards and city councilors .

American elections are different from those of many other democracies and their rules and customs are often disconcerting. Here are some answers to readers' questions about how the 2018 medium-term goals will work.

What exactly are mid-term elections?

In the most literal sense of the term, the mid-term elections are exactly what their name suggests: the mid-term elections that take place at the president's four-year term. This covers a wide range of competitions, ranging from congressional seats to small town mayors and county sheriffs.

The US congressional elections, held every two years, are the most prominent contests. In the House of Representatives, the lower house, the 435 seats are disputed each time. In the Senate, in the upper chamber, the tenure of senators is six years, so that about a third of them are eligible. This year, 35 of the 100 Senate seats are at stake. All these terms and election dates are set by the United States Constitution.

When people refer to mid-term elections, these congressional votes are usually what they think. They offer voters the greatest opportunity, between presidential elections, to weigh on the president's performance and to change the balance of power if they are not satisfied.

There are also thousands of other races across the country. A majority of US states – 36 out of 50 – will hold governor elections this year, and the vast majority of state legislatures will also hold elections. In many places, voters will also choose judges, sheriffs, mayors and other local officials. All these elections are governed by state and local laws, and not by the United States Constitution.

National and local breeds often go unnoticed, even in the United States. But governors and state legislators have considerable power, as do mayors in big cities. The laws they create for their residents can vary greatly from place to place and sometimes serve as a test for various policies.

Perhaps most critically, most states have mandated their legislatures to redefine the boundaries of their parliamentary districts (we will discuss this later). This year's election will determine which party will control many of these legislatures – and the governors who can approve or veto them – in the next process in 2020. At all levels of the US government, the mid-term elections can last for years.

[If Tuesday is better than expected for Republicans, this number may help explain why]

What are the most important elections to watch? We will start with the House of Representatives.

Although some individual breeds need to be monitored, the easiest way to track the evolution of the problem is probably to consult the "generic ballot". It is then that investigators simply ask voters if they prefer that Democrats or Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike many democracies, this number has no effect on real races in the United States. But this is an important indicator of the party likely to prevail: a party that conducts the poll of eight percentage points, as do the Democrats at the moment, will not get exactly 8% of seats additional, but that will probably still gain more than the other side in general.

If voters strongly favor Republicans, for example, many districts that normally have a modest or moderate advantage for Democrats will suddenly become vulnerable or vice versa. If you hear people talking about a "wave election", as they did this year, that's what they're talking about – the fact that many more elections are competitive than normal because of the political atmosphere.

All this means that Democrats are the big favorites in the recapture of Parliament: the FiveThirtyEight news site estimates that they have about a 85% chance of winning the majority of seats in November. But, as was the case in 2016, it still means that Republicans also have paths to victory.

Texas Democratic Senate Representative in Texas, Beto O'Rourke, attends a rally in Austin on Sunday. (Nick Wagner / Austin American-American via AP)

Where is the Senate?

Only one-third of Senate members must be re-elected at a time, which means that major political movements that can bring about major changes in the House are rare in the Upper House.

Instead, the control of the Senate is usually determined simply by the states that elect the senators that year. If elections are held in more democratic, more reliable states, Democrats will probably have a good year, and vice versa. This year, the card largely favors Republicans: Democrats must defend 26 of the 35 seats in the election, many of them in states having voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Republicans can focus on Democrats' victory in places the most favorable. rather than trying to consolidate their own senators.

North Dakota: Senator Heidi Heitkamp is the Democrat most likely to fall. In a very Republican state, she is extremely likely to lose her seat – perhaps especially after voting against the confirmation of the controversial Supreme Court candidate Brett M. Kavanaugh. Recent polls have shown that Heitkamp trailed significantly. If it loses, it will be a blow to the Democrats' chances of reclaiming the Senate.

Nevada: This is the best opportunity for Democrats to be replaced by Republicans. Nevada voted for the Democrats in the last three presidential elections, and a Democrat won the seat in the open Senate that was to be elected in 2016. The Nevada people also account for more than a quarter of Latin Americans, and the unions Democrats play a major role in the politics of the state. At the moment, the race is almost tied, Republican Sen. Dean Heller may be slightly favored.

Indiana: This is another place where Democrats need one of their senators to hang in a Republican state. Senator Joe Donnelly appears to be in better shape than his counterpart in North Dakota: polls give him an edge. If he loses, this could be a sign that Republicans are going to have a better night than expected.

[Anxiety high in campaign’s final days as voters prepare to render judgment on Trumpism]

How will the results of the mid-term reviews affect Trump?

When people ask this question, they probably wonder about one thing: impeachment. However, although dismissing Trump is a rallying cry for its harshest critics – and, according to polls, it's surprisingly popular – it's unlikely to happen.

The indictment is actually a two-step process, defined in the US Constitution. First, the House of Representatives examines the charges against the president. If he votes in favor of dismissal (he only requires a simple majority), it means that the president has been formally charged. To remove him from office, the Senate must then vote to condemn him for these charges, which require a two-thirds majority. Presidents can be removed without being expelled from the White House, as Bill Clinton did in 1998.

All this would only be possible if the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, which is unlikely. Even if the Democrats win both, their leaders seem lukewarm about the impeachment; Nancy Pelosi, the largest Democrat in the House, said that Trump's removal was "not a priority".

What the Democrats could do is launch more serious investigations into Trump's dealings with Russia, his trade relations, or any other thing they consider to be downplayed by the Republicans. This could lead to further damaging evidence, or it could simply dominate the news as Trump prepares for his reelection campaign. Anyway, expect a traffic jam. If a Democratic House and a Republican Senate go to war, it is difficult to see a major law passed.

President Trump at a campaign rally at the Pensacola International Airport in Florida on Saturday. (Evan Vucci / AP)

For many people abroad, the US electoral system seems strange – and apparently unfair in its way of representing the will of voters. Can this system be changed?

The electoral college plays no role in other elections, including those on Tuesday. But, like the rules governing congressional elections, it's part of the US Constitution. Changing these rules requires amending the Constitution rather than simply passing a new law, and the hurdle to amendments is high. They must be approved by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, then again by at least 38 states (there is another way, by convening a new constitutional convention, but this has never been the case before) .

The country being deeply divided, it would be almost impossible to reach agreement on two-thirds of the two houses of Congress. But it is not only partisanship that makes change unlikely.

The status quo provides a significant advantage to small states. The seats in the House of Representatives are determined by the population: the more people there are in the state, the greater their share of the 435 seats. Whatever the case may be, each state has two seats in the Senate. Small states, regardless of their partisanship, are unlikely to support amendments that would reduce their power.

There is more room for experimentation at the state level. States can not change the way they are represented in Congress, but they can change the vote of their own residents. Instead of using the first-past-the-post system – that is, the one with the most votes, even if the highest candidate does not reach the majority – some states require first rounds of voting, so that the winners get more than 50% of the votes. the vote, and Maine uses a different system called instant draw vote. In fact, most states have laws and constitutions that mimic the national government.

[Where the money is going in the final push before Election Day]

What about these strange-shaped districts? Why do they exist?

Once again, the answer is (at least in part) in the US Constitution. The Constitution requires the country to conduct a census every 10 years and the seats in the House of Representatives to be distributed among the states in proportion to their population. Thus, once a decade, some states will win or lose seats according to the evolution of the population. The changes are determined automatically according to a mathematical formula.

But the Constitution does not say How States should establish the limits of these seats; everyone is free to use his own method. Many states are leaving their legislatures to do so, and this is how the incredible practice of "gerrymandering" is achieved – creating districts that have little geographical sense to give an advantage to a party. The party in power at the beginning of the decade will obviously try to give itself more seats, either by connecting its own voters to each other in a strange way, or by blocking the largest possible number of voters opposite in the smallest possible number of seats.

These cards may subsequently be challenged in court for being manifestly unfair and even redrawn by the judges. Partisanship and chaos are common.

This may seem crazy to many non-Americans, and several states are in agreement. California and Arizona have independent boards that draw their cards, and lawmakers and officials are not allowed to participate. Three other states have advisory boards that develop recommendations for submission to their legislatures. Four others have appointed committees, where both parties can nominate members to participate. These are all attempts to make the division a little less partisan and a little more accurate.

The United States could, in theory, amend the Constitution to create something similar to the British Boundary Commissions, public bodies that determine the shape of districts without any partisan influence. But until then (and this is an unlikely prospect), it is up to the states to decide how they want to manage the process and to the courts to decide if the situation has gotten out of hand.

The campaign signs in front of a polling station on the last day of advance voting in Dallas on Friday. (Mike Segar / Reuters)

Why spend so much money on elections?

So, if you want to give directly to the candidate or the party of your choice, you can not give as much. The problem is that there is virtually no restriction if you want to support a candidate. indirectly. The law allows certain types of outside groups to accept unlimited sums and use them to defend or prevent a candidate. The most famous of these groups are the "super PACs", which have become a means for wealthy donors on both sides to pay money in elections.

Technically, these independent groups are not allowed to coordinate with the campaigns or parties they support. But the definition of "coordination" is narrow and super PACs are closely linked to candidates and parties – they are often run by close associates of candidates or party insiders. Groups find many creative ways to work closely with the people they support.

These groups are allowed because the Supreme Court considers that giving money to political causes is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. The court has relaxed the rules on political donations over the years and has virtually eliminated all the limits imposed on these outside groups in 2010.

But the sum of money in politics does not increase constantly. The most expensive election year so far has been 2008 and the situation has declined slightly since then. What is still increasing is the amount of money spent by these outside groups and, presumably, the influence of the people who finance them.