The U.S. election from 'Biden-Trump' to 'Trump Waiting' to today's 'Harris-Trump Battle' iscan be said to be an interesting political drama series. In From January 2021, when Trump lost the re-election campaign and stepped down (With 74 million votes (47%), Biden was elected as the 46th president. Trump saidhad stated that he would run for the US presidential election again in 2024. News about his campaign and lawsuits have continued for more than three years. On July 13 this year, he was shot and , assassinated while campaigning in Pennsylvania, which caused his election chances to soar. The Democratic Party panicked and called for a leadership change. On July 21, Biden was pressured to withdraw from the race, and he nominated Vice President Harris for his replacement. Beiden transferred nearly 100 million political donations and more than 1,000 campaign workers to Harris, which reversed the election outlook from electoral votes consideration. Judging from the current poll numbers of the Democratic Party, the polls of "Harris" have already erased the negative percentage points when "Beiden battling Trump" and turned into positive percentage points. Of course, these encouraging polls cannot be used as definite marks for prediction. The 2024 U.S. presidential election mustwill have to be analyzed and judged based on 'U.S. electoral customs or culture' and the 'American electoral principles' (political and economic interests’ considerations) of its voters and donors.
 
This article uses American electoral customs (or culture) and principles to analyze and predict the U.S. 47th presidential election a couple of months ahead of the election date, November 5th. First, the author will briefly explain what American electoral customs and principles are. Americans' attention to the presidential election is not high, as can be seen from their turnout, which is mostly below 66% (less than two-thirds over many years). At the same time, this 'concern about the election' is inversely proportional to the per capita income, knowledge level, and asset/wealth of the American people (all are pyramids or triangles). Inversely proportional means (inverted pyramids or triangles), that is the poorer, lesser knowledgeable, and lower-income people pay lesser attention to elections, yet their populations are greater. This inverse ratio between election attention and voter group population has developed an electoral custom; let's call it the ‘inverted pyramid election custom'.
 
In the inverted pyramid election custom, voters at the bottom of the pyramid are mostly concerned about their lives. Whether the elected officials and politicians, including the president, can bring them any substantial benefits in day-to-day life, so economic issues such as inflation, employment opportunities, and iIndices related to people's livelihood are their political and economic considerations. People at the top of the pyramid have no problems with their lives and are generally in control of themselves. Their election principles are different from those voters at the bottom of the pyramid. What they want is that the elected officials will be influenced or better be controlled by them, so that the government's systems and policies can benefit their businesses or ways of making profits or their lifestyle. They do not need officials with ability and knowledge, but rather officials who obey their will and thinking. So, the voters at the top of the pyramid want to influence elections and elect people who can be influenced by them. This is the electoral principle of those at the top of the voter pyramid in the United States.
 
We don’t need to carefully understand the so-called “deep state” of the United States. We can deducte from the above-mentioned American electoral customs and principles why elderly presidents are not a problem. Identity politics is more important than ability evaluation. Neither the elderly nor the incompetent president violates the electoral principles. (Compliance and willingness to be influenced and controlled are important factors). Elections in the United States require fundraising and have become 'money elections', which are directed by the above- discussed election customs and principles. The votes of most lower-class voters, although there are many, they can be influenced by campaign advertisements and campaign activities (mass media) supported by funds from fundraisers and donors, people at the top of the pyramid, of course. The candidates they like are mainly super fundraisers and good speakers. They must be great in fundraising by understanding the wishes of the donors, complying with the desires of the donors, and speaking in a way that can incite low-level voters. These phenomena are the direct results of American electoral customs and electoral principles.
 
It is now less than two months before the US presidential election day, which should be the final stage of the sprint for Harris and Trump. However, Harris was drafted out of the fight halfway; she has not yet been scrutinized by the media and the public. The debate between the two on September 12 was the first public scrutiny for Harris, a major hurdle. Fifty-eight million people had watched this debate. No major mistakes were made by either party in the debate. Harris showed that she had prepared for more than a week, answering and attacking Trump according to the prepared text, while Trump remained the same with spontaneiety. Trump has a strong debating character and answers fast showing that he has a good memory and can name people, places, and topics spontaneously. During the debate, the media was obviously biased towards Harris, but many people believed that Harris showed little substance. There were different reports claiming ups and downs in the polls between the two, but the difference was not enough to determine victory or defeat. Therefore, at this moment, unless there is a special event like an assassination that affects the election, the battle between Harris and Trump can be analyzed based on the above electoral customs and principles to predict who will be the winner.
 
In terms of fundraising, Biden had been leading until the spring. It was not until June 1 that Trump overtook him. On July 21, Biden withdrew and nominated Harris. By August, the Democratic Party’s campaign coffers were generous again, exceeding the Republican Party's coffers. Thus, there was a three-fold difference in spending. As of the September 12 debate day, the Harris camp has solicited 43 million U.S. dollars. By election day, it is estimated to have spentded over 131 million U.S. dollars on television and radio broadcasts.   From this point of view, the battle between Harris and Trump seems to be a Harris win and Trump loss. But big American donors can have great influence. For example, a private fundraiser can raise millions in one night, and big financiers like Musk can donate an unlimited amount (he publicly supports Trump) via America PAC. Therefore, it can be said that Harris currently has the winning advantage, but the final outcome depends on the following two observations.
 
The first is the performance of the major donors. Those on both sides of the fence will now express their stance more clearly with money, while those who are already on one side will increase their positions to increase their chances of winning (future influence). In this aspect, there are likely more big donors in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. The second is that with less than two months left in a tight race, which campaign team can master the location selection of the campaign activity and make efficient use of the time of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to participate in campaigns in swing states to is very critical. Because swing states may be affected by Tens of thousands of votes, to determine the entire state's electoral votes (each state has different populations, a total of 538 electoral votes nationwide). TIn order to win over swing states, one must spend money on publicity and campaign messages, and must appear in person to give speeches to win votes from the bottom of the pyramids. Trump has more experience in this regard and has an advantage over Harris. After the shooting on July 13th, Trump's opinion polls increased, and two changes occurred. First, the Democratic Party changed its leadership in panic, and second, the Republican Party's sense of urgency and crisis decreased. This showed up in the September 12 debate and fundraising campaigns.
 
Based on the above analysis of American electoral customs and principles, Harris, on the surface, has a financial advantage over Trump, but the difference is not big. Who will win inat the end will depend on whether Trump can raise the Republican Party’s sense of urgency and crisis, and at the same time whether he can ask the donors to rush for blood transfusions ( quick donations) to promote the election message to the core base, while making the final push at the correctly selected campaign sites in the swing states. We only need to follow Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Nevada, and Utah to see a hint of victory to predict whether Harris or Trump will win. In 2016, Trump won 77,000 votes over Hillary (Pennsylvania won 44,292, Wisconsin won 22,748 and Michigan won 10,704, a total of 136 million votes). In 2020, Trump lost the 269 electoral votes he needed because he lost 44,000 votes to Biden in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. Therefore, the author can only give the above analysis and prediction and let the reader ring the final victory bell!
 
 

​
Link of Education to Nation Development

Most people believe that “education is the key to success” on a personal level, such as the effect of education on employment, earning power, problem-solving skills, individual prosperity, and a happy life. Some general discussions on education's contribution to communities or societies and its effect on personal attributes (human development) are critical thinking, communication skills, and IQ (brain development). Other than some institutional work tabulating economic statistics such as GDP and life expectancy in correlation with national education levels, such as K-6, K-9, or K-12, there is no serious discussion or case study on the effect of education on nation development (nation-building). Currently, the U.S. and China are in a serious competitive relationship, engaging in a trade war (tariff), technology sanctions (R&D&M), and all-out competition covering diplomacy, media, military, and education. In education, it involved some critical policies such as curtailing education exchanges (foreign studies) and limiting scholarly interactions. This paper attempts to focus on the issue of education on national development and how education may have led to the U.S.-China relations to today's hostile state unnecessarily and why there is a need for a K-12 curriculum guide for nation development in addition to personal development to make American students gain global citizenship knowledge and aspiration with ability to improve US foreign relations such as the U.S.-China relations. 
 
Impact of Education on Society and Citizen Prosperity
 
The following table tabulates the education spending of the G7 developed countries, Mainland China, and Taiwan: 2020 data, U.S. 6.05% of GDP, $1290.04B, population 331.51M, Japan 3.42% of GDP, $172.01B, Population 126M, Germany, 4.66% of GDP, $181.02B, population 84M, UK 5.53% of GDP, $149.29B, population 67.08M, France, 5.5% of GDP, $145.59B, population 65.3M, Italy, 4.27% of GDP, $80.96B, population 60.5M, Canada, 5.17% of GDP, $85.61B, population 38.01M, Mainland China, 3.57% of GDP, 524.35B, population 1411.78M, Taiwan, 5% of GDP, $33.66B, population 23.66M. From these data, one can derive an important indicator, per-capita education spending (PES 2020) which is $3891 (US), $1315 (Japan), $2155 (Germany), $2226 (UK), $2230 (France), $1338 (Italy), $2252 (Canada), $371.4 (Mainland China) and $1427 (Taiwan as a province*). *The national PES figure of China is extremely low, but its provincial figure of Guangdong's GDP (One of the richest provinces in Southern China) is $1700B with a population of 126M and that of Guizhou's GDP (One of the relatively poorer provinces near Southwest China) is 275.93B with a population of 38.56M. Using the same percentage spending for education, 3.57% (China sets relatively uniform education policies across all provinces, rich or poor), one obtains $482 for Guangdong's PES and $256 for Guizhou's PES, in comparison with China's national PES of $371. These figures may not be precise, but they do show a ballpark estimate of PES in China. The high PES figures of G7 (the richest nations in the world) endorse the conclusion that education is an important element in achieving and maintaining wealth or standard of living for a nation.
 
More In-depth Analysis of Data
 
However, if one examines the above data with a deeper analysis, one finds the following conclusions:

1. Among G7, the U.S. has the highest PES ($3891), Germany, the UK, France, and Canada have comparable PES of around $2200, and Italy and Japan have similar PES of about $1350. Japan's GDP is twice that of Italy, hence the fruit of its PES is nearly double Italy's. The U.S. GDP (PES) is about 5.4 to 12.9 (PES 1.8 to 1.73) times that of Germany, the UK, France, and Canada, but only 11.25 (2.9) times of Italy and only 4.22 (2.83) times of Japan's GDP(PES). This means that the U.S. got the highest yield from its PES and Japan the second. (Set US as 1.0, then Japan is 4.22/2.83=1.49, Germany, Great Britain, France, and Canada are approximately 5.4/1.8=3, and Italy is 11.25/2.9=3.88)
2. Comparing the U.S. with Mainland China and Taiwan in GDP (PES), the U.S. is 1.45(10.5) times that of China's GDP (PES) and 31.69 (2.78) times of Taiwan's GDP (PES). These figures tell us that China is extremely productive (by spending 1/10.5 of US PES and obtaining 1/1.45 of US GDP). Since China has rapidly lifted its population from poverty, it has maintained its growth rate of GDP double or more than that of the U.S, and it also has modernized its defense forces with high morale (patriotism) to deal with the geopolitical pressure from its 14 neighbors and other nations. Furthermore, its people's life expectancy surpasses that of the U.S. (healthcare), and its crime rate (especially in correlation with broken families) per capita is far less than that of the U.S. (more harmonious society). One must draw an inference that China's education system is not only more productive (1.45/10.5=0.14) in creating educated manpower for the economy but also more effective for nation development.      

 
Conclusions
 
In the above analysis, one may say that the U.S. is faring reasonably well among G7 nations except when compared with a rising China. Hence, it is no surprise that the U.S. is targeting China as its most serious competitor. However, the current U.S. China policy focuses on diplomacy, military, technology, and economic competition with a hostile strategy trying to build alliances with other nations to curtail China's rise with a result (leading to war) not at all constructive in building a stronger and better U.S. in terms of nation development. China has several thousands of years of history, rich in philosophy, especially in education and human ethics. Ever since Confucius (551-479 BCE), education was treated as the highest priority, the engine for nation-building not only creating scholars, government servants, military servicemen, and various categories of professionals but most importantly giving the highest respect to teachers and emphasizing education curriculum to include its long history, family and moral values and humanity. (Chinese philosophers including the famous war strategist Sun Ze, are peaceful-minded in contrast to the Western Thucydides theory.) Tests were used to evaluate and accept educators and government officers as a long tradition. Today, China is still employing many of the traditional pedagogy, curriculum selection, and testing methods at various stages of education and career cycles. The rapid rise or recovery of China to become a modern and strong nation today is somewhat linked to its military strength but is far more influenced by its education focus. China creates millions of STEM professionals, dedicated researchers in various disciplines, and millions of government workers with dedication to serve the nation. The success of the Bridge and Road Initiative, BRI, a world project involving global citizenship knowledge, and the lunar exploration project are cases examples.
 
Taiwan as a part of China but separated from the Mainland as a result of the Chinese domestic conflict after WW II. Taiwan of course inherited everything Chinese, culture, language, and the philosophy of education. Taiwan was able to rise economically even earlier than mainland China, but unfortunately, since 1990 its political system is driving ideology to interfere with traditions, most critically on education by allowing political ideology to dictate the curriculum under a premeditated plot of K-12 curriculum revision. Merely three decades, the youth in Taiwan were deprived of history, ancient literature, and teachings of moral values. The results much like what we observe in the U.S., students began to struggle with identification (gender, sex, etc.) issues, having no national pride (blindly equating anti-communist and anti-China with no genuine global citizenship knowledge and denying their ancestry), and wandering with no purpose in life. As a result, the economy of Taiwan became stagnant and dependent on trade with Mainland China, entry-level salaries of professionals have been frozen for decades, unemployment rising, and people are confused with war messages from the over-vibrant media – a very familiar scenario as seen in the U.S. All of these can be traced to the government's wrong strategy of focusing on economic and military competition rather than investing rationally in education, especially on K-12 curriculum guide, for nation development. One must recognize that the real meaningful competition is in education, China and Taiwan are cases for reference. A clear K-12 global citizenship curriculum is a must for all nations striving for nation development and ever-lasting world peace.

​        

​ 
Everyone has one vote with equal weight is a myth in American Democracy. MThere are many factors that would affect the weight of your vote. First, the turnout of voters in the last presidential election (2020) was 66.1% (158.428M out of 240M eligible voters) with 81M not votinged. If you think that you were close to the 81M non-voters in political or economic interest, then the weight of your vote was reduced by 33.95 before you even cast your vote. But if you were not, then your vote might gain 33.9% weight in the next presidential election. As everyone knows, American democracy is financed by fund raising. The total funds raised by candidates were $3.9774B ofin which $1.6243B ($0.58B outside of the Committee) was raised by Biden/Democratic Party and $1.0879B (0.3139B outside of the Ccommittee) by Trump/Republican Party. These funds were used for campaigns to get your vote. If you were a presidential election donor, you had donated more than $2712.2M/158.428M=$17.12, then your vote would gain more weight, otherwise losing weight. So, in American democracy, the more money a voter is contributesing to the election, the more weight the voter has with his or her vote, since the campaign dollars are used for advertising to influence voters.
 
Political donations are not democratic, they are not tax -deductible, hence, only a tiny fraction of Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties, or PACs. The ones who give contributions large enough to be itemized (over $200) areis very small, but the impact of those donations is huge. The Ssupreme Ccourt ruled 5-4 on January 21, 2010, to allow corporations, nonprofits, and labor unions to contribute unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates with the view that the contribution is not a corrupting influence on elected officials. Since then, American elections becoame more expensive, and billions of dollars entered into crucial races through political parties spreading into candidate campaigns. Thus, a small number of wealthy donors can increase their political power (weight of their votes) by making campaign contributions. These donations are “dark money” hidden as secret sources of funding in elections. The donors behind became political powerhouses. The weight of their 'votes' isare obviously much greater than one, one vote per person.
 
The 'money dependency' of American democracy essentially fosters a two- major party (Democrat versus Republican) democracy; it is extremely difficult for any small third party to rival with the money-rich major parties. Hence, in most races, multiple candidates essentially dwindle down to a Democrat vs Republican, two- candidate race. In the 2024 presidential race, it was Biden (Democrat/Incumbent) versus Trump (Republican? cChallenger) race, but due to many reasons (principally Biden's health reason), Biden bowed out of the presidential race on July 21 and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to run for the race. Harris picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the VP running mate and got the Democratic party's nomination without a primary or facing any other democratic challenger. The voters have too much news on former president Trump's 91 lawsuits from the media and too little information on VP Harris from her short-lived campaign for the presidency in 2020 and her quiet Vice Presidency under President  Biden. Both Trump and Harris could be considered to have had a learning experience in the White House, Trump a business man with little political experience, and Harris, an 'identity' VP having little experience with national and international issues. Now the voters must select a new master for the White House while the U.S. is facing serious domestic problems and a challenging U.S.-China relations.  
 
Since 1796, the U.S. presidential election has always been a two-party contest. The partisanship of voters isare evenly split between Democrats (49% of registered voters) and Republicans (48% of registered voters) in 2024 versus 51% vs 46% in 2020. The so- called independent voters will have a bigger chance to influence the outcome. With the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Palestine wars on-going and the U.S.-China relations worsening, the foreign issues have become just as important as the domestic issues in the 2024 presidential election. So how should American voters, especially Chinese American voters, analyze the 2024 presidential election and determine which candidate to vote for? If voters are going to vote along party line, then the 3% independent voters will determine the next President. Generally, more Asian American voters (except Vietnamese) registered as Democrats (56% Chinese, 68% Indians, 68% Filipino, 67% Korean, and 42% Vietnamese 42% (51% Republicans)). Chinese Americans are the largest group among Asian Americans (22% of 15M =3.3M) and have the highest turnout in voting (79.4% of 3.3M = 2.6M) in 2020. Three million votes can be very significant in the 2024 presidential election, assuming the voter turnout isto be 160M with a 50% to 50% party split (80M:80M).
 
For Chinese Americans, the U.S.-China relations (trade tariff, technology sanction, Taiwan Strait tension, and South China Sea conflict) and U.S. domestic issues (crime against Asian/Chinese, criminal injustice, inflation, small business, immigration policy, and taxes) are more important considerations in selecting your president in the 2024 election. Trump although may not be predictable in his decision- making process and employment of tactics, he is firm on his core beliefs, against free immigration, free trade, and foreign wars but pro- business, all genuinely for the best interest of the U.S.  His first term in the White House was full of surprises and rash decisions which could be because he was new to foreign affairs, national domestic politics, and the use of presidential power. He had to learn on the job and admit mistakes as seen from his firing of his staff and changing his subordinates. Now he is seeking another term in the White House, the voters must ask probing questions, especially on persistent issues such as stimulating the economy and managing U.S.-China relations; will he be better atin resolving foreign and domestic problems with his first term as an experience?
 
Harris, being an Indian and Black descent, was picked by Biden as the vice pPresident largely because of his 'identity' politics. In nearly four years in the White House, Harris was not given any significant assignment requiring executive ability, diplomatic skills, or strategic thinking. One must ask whether she has learned enough by observing the Biden Administration. She had not organized any significant town hall meeting or performed any extended TV interview or debate to respond to serious questions, such as economic policy (for bringing down inflation and creating jobs), trade issues, climate change, and immigration (reconcilinge from decriminalizing illegal border crossing to secure border better than Trump). Will she continue with Biden's foreign policy and the Ukraine and Israel wars or offer alternative solutions to end them? Will she fulfill Biden's implication that the U.S. would defend Taiwan if a war broke out in the Taiwan Strait? Voters must also ask what kind of caliber people she can she bring to her cabinet to serve the country.?
 
Both Trump and Harris must present some 'change' ingredients in their campaign promises, the Chinese Americans are in the best position to query them: What is the justification to target China as an enemy? (Fear of China seems to be self- inflicted.) Why shouldn't the U.S. engage China to participate in peace mediation to stop the Ukraine and Israel wars? Endless and all- out competitions with China isare clearly leading to war with no advantage to the U.S., China, and the world.? Chinese Americans shouldhave the obligation to make all Americans to understand through questions to presidential candidates that Chinese are peace- loving and rhetoric with no evidence serves no good purpose.