The Economist explains | America’s election

Why The Economist endorses political candidates

Our independence is protected by our principles and structure

A child stands on a chair at a voting booth at a polling site in Pella, Iowa
Photograph: Jordan Gale/New York Times/Redux/eyevine

IN THE PAST week two prominent American newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, announced that their editorial boards would not endorse a candidate for America’s presidency. They argued that this would be less divisive and promote their independence. Today The Economist issued its own endorsement, of Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. We have a long tradition of endorsing candidates, in Britain, America and around the world—not as a break with independence, but an example of it.

Discover more

Close-up of chrysotile asbestos fibers on a gloved hand.

Is RFK junior right to say America allows more toxins than the EU?

He is, but things are slowly beginning to change

A photo illustration showing a pile of coal gradually disappearing.

What would it cost to kill coal?

The price of shutting down coal power, and what would be gained


A bumper sticker on an SUV reads 'FLUORIDE - THERE IS POISON IN THE TAP WATER' in Blackhawk, Colorado, USA.

Should America ban fluoride in its drinking water?

The idea by Robert F. Kennedy junior—nominated by Donald Trump as health secretary—may have teeth


Why is Donald Trump keen to use “recess appointments”?

The president-elect is testing the loyalty of the Senate’s next majority leader

Will Donald Trump’s power be unchecked if Republicans win the House?

A “trifecta” of presidency, Senate and House of Representatives would provide a huge opportunity

Is Kamala Harris right to call Donald Trump a fascist?

The f-word helps explain him, but may not help beat him