Nebraska Contemplates An Electoral College Change
Nebraska, as anyone who has taken an American civics course will tell you, has a unique form of government. But "unique" isn't the "uni-" word that we all learned to describe it, that would instead be: "unicameral" -- since its legislature only has one chamber, not two. Every other state follows the model of the United States Congress, with an upper chamber that corresponds to the U.S. Senate and a lower chamber matching the U.S. House of Representatives. Nebraska, however, decided long ago that such a division was not necessary. Nebraska also has one other governmental quirk that is not completely unique, since it shares this one with Maine: neither state awards its Electoral College votes in the "winner-takes-all" fashion that the other 48 states use. This, however, might be about to change in the Cornhusker State.
Electoral College votes are apportioned to the states depending on how many members they have in Congress. The minimum any state can have is three, which equates to one for each of its senators and one for its lone House member. In more-populous states with multiple districts, the Electoral College count matches the number of House members plus two (for the senators). In both Maine and Nebraska, the two Electoral College votes representing their senators are awarded to the statewide winner in the presidential race, but the others match how each House district voted. Maine is the easiest to understand because it only has two House districts. A presidential candidate can therefore either win all four of Maine's Electoral College votes (if the statewide winner wins in both districts) or he or she can win only three of them (if their opponent wins in one of the House districts). Nebraska has the same setup, but with three House seats, for a total of five Electoral College votes.
In the past four presidential elections, Nebraska has split their Electoral College vote twice. In both 2020 and 2008, one of their House districts voted Democratic, so the Republican candidate only got four votes out of the state. This didn't fundamentally change the overall race in any way, since the margin in the Electoral College wasn't that close. But in a very close race, it could.
There is now a very late-in-the-game push to change this system working its way through the unicameral Nebraska legislature, as the Washington Post reports today. It is not a sure thing, for two reasons. First, they're running out of days in their legislative session -- they may not have enough time to get it through, in other words. Second, the Republicans may not have the votes to overcome a filibuster (which has been complicated by a recent decision by one Democrat to switch parties and become a Republican). Donald Trump is reportedly strongly in favor of the change though, so it still could happen.
It probably won't make any difference to the presidential race, no matter what happens. One Electoral Vote can only be consequential if it becomes the margin of victory (which would be incredibly rare).
But I have to say, the system that both Maine and Nebraska currently use is a lot more fair than the system all the other states use. It seems like a good compromise between the "winner-takes-all" system and a direct popular vote deciding the presidency. A national popular vote would abolish the Electoral College altogether, of course. That would take a constitutional amendment to happen though, so it's not likely to change any time soon.
But just imagine the change it would bring if every state had the same process that Nebraska and Maine use. As things currently stand, the Electoral College system effectively disenfranchises millions of voters, since if you are a Democrat in a deep red state or a Republican in a deep blue state, your presidential vote simply is not going to matter. And even the reddest states have blue islands within them, while the bluest states have rural red areas as well. Dividing up the votes by House district would at least give a Republican voter in California or a Democrat in Alabama a real reason to turn out to vote.
This system wouldn't be perfect, since there are a number of states with only one House district (which would have to remain winner-takes-all as a result). But it sure would be an improvement. It would also upend the entire concept of "battleground states," since presidential candidates wouldn't have the luxury of just concentrating on a handful of state races -- they'd have to campaign in a much wider geographic way. It would make winning the Electoral College a lot more complicated, obviously. But that would be a good thing for democracy, since voters in a lot more states would feel a lot more engaged with the process.
The problem with this pie-in-the-sky scenario, however, is that each state is in charge of its own election system. And the only way we'd get to a fairer system is if a whole bunch of them -- both red states and blue -- simultaneously decided to upend the entire presidential electoral system. And there simply is no incentive for them to do that.
Who, after all, is going to go first? If a blue state like New York or California enacted this change, it would mean the Democratic presidential candidate would be at a serious national disadvantage. Any Republican would be able to peel off dozens of Electoral College votes from just these two states, in a normal election. The only way it would balance out is if states like Florida and Texas also made the same change, at the same time. Which is highly unlikely to ever happen (no matter who went first -- if a few red states changed, it would be just as unlikely for blue states to follow suit, since not doing so would give the Democratic candidate a clear national advantage).
So while it is fun to contemplate in an abstract and hypothetical way, it's not going to become reality any time soon (or, more accurately, "ever"). It's far more likely that both Nebraska and Maine decide they're tired of being the odd-state-out in the Electoral College system and move to the winner-takes-all system the other 48 states use. This could happen as soon as the next few weeks in Nebraska, although I haven't heard of any similar effort in Maine. The two states have served as experiments in a "states are the laboratories of democracy" sort of way, up to this point. But because these experiments are not likely to ever change the outcome of a presidential race (only one vote from each state has ever flipped), it has served as no more than a footnote on Election Day, as the returns come in.
Of course, these two votes could actually make the difference one day. It's not that hard to come up with a plausible map showing a 270-268 Electoral College outcome, or even a 269-269 tie. In such a scenario, the Maine and Nebraska votes would be absolutely crucial. And we are such an evenly-divided country that it's not all that farfetched to imagine such a result.
Which is why Nebraska Republicans are making the attempt to preclude one of their Electoral College votes from throwing the race one way or the other. It's hard to fault them for making this effort, seeing as how the stakes could one day be incredibly high. So while it would be a much better thing for American democracy if all the other states moved to adopt Nebraska's system, it makes perfect sense right now for Nebraska to backpedal and adopt the system that 48 other states use.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It makes "perfect sense" for Nebraska to go backwards? Is its current fairness somehow interfering with the proper operation of the unfairness all round it? I guess I don't understand.
So not only could states gerrymander their House representation, the could gerrymander their votes for President.
Fair point David, what's to stop partisan gerrymandering of electoral college districts?
Seriously, though, Republicans have been trying to get this Electoral College apportionment changed in Nebraska and failing over and over.
Hear me now and believe me later: I'm telling you, the chance of this actually happening this election year are close to ZERO.
Hey nypoet22,
Nothing with me has changed since I read that propaganda piece (it wasn’t particularly egregious IMO) and supplemented it with a variety of sources.
I now consider myself to be a somewhat radicalized Zionist. I’m aware that the IDF is held to standards that no other country — including America — is held to. Yeah, the dead aid workers sucks but so did IDF forces gunning down three of their comrades early on. This does suggest a strong motivation for revenge but I can’t blame them for it.
I don’t see how a “two-state solution” would be anything less than national suicide. Jews don’t live anywhere else in the Middle East which says a lot about Jews “living in peace” with Muslims. These “river to the sea” Palestinians haven’t given up for three quarters of a century now, so at this point I say fuck ‘em. Ethnic cleanse their asses out of Gaza and the West Bank and plant them in Jordan
Your thoughts on this would be appreciated!
Oh yeah, and Bibi sucks!
@caddy,
My main thought is that more than any other conflict I can think of, regarding Israel and Palestinians it is very difficult to tell the news from the spin.
Joshua,
It's not really that hard to decipher what is real about the US-empowered Israeli war in Gaza.
What I imagine is very hard is accepting the reality of what Israel is trying to do.
Israel is trying to confront an imminent threat to their lives and the lives of their families. if you don't like the way they're going about it, feel free to move out there and try and implement your favorite strategy to protect your family.
Poet do you think Bibi is conducting this war with an unspoken priority being his political fate? Maybe he’s prolonging it to escape early elections?
[7]
Day-yam, Elizabeth! First and to this day you claim that Ukraine is Biden’s/America’s fault. Now you want to blame America for this latest Arab aggression?
Yep, with both conflicts there is a gigaton of spin, propaganda and outright lies.
@caddy [9],
yes.
Day-yam, Elizabeth! First and to this day you claim that Ukraine is Biden’s/America’s fault. Now you want to blame America for this latest Arab aggression
Get real, Caddy or STFU!
Joshua,
Israel is trying to confront an imminent threat to their lives and the lives of their families. if you don't like the way they're going about it, feel free to move out there and try and implement your favorite strategy to protect your family.
Well, Israel failed spectacularly on that count. And, now the IDF over-reacts. Hopefully there will be a real reckoning about all of that but I'm not holding my breath.
If the IDF need me to implement an effective strategy, then the situation is more dire than I thought. Heh.
Clearly, after decades of occupation and repeating cycles of violence the IDF has lost its professionalism and is no longer considered a premiere fighting force. I hope that can be rectified over time for the sake of the survival of the Jewish state and the security and safety of all Israeli families.
The IDF certainly don't need your ignorant snark, and at the moment neither do i.
[13]
[14]
That’s some whacko shit there, Elizabeth. :O “Engagement” in the back and forth over any issue means responding to the points raised.
So what is factually INCORRECT about my summary? What am I misunderstanding? And where the hell are you getting your foreign policy information?
Still love ya, Liz. But you were an almost prescient supporter of Joe Biden —more than anyone in Weigantia — and then you flipped on him because Vladimir invaded.
And now you add your voice to the cacophony that condemns Israel and holds her to a far higher standard than, say, Assad and Putin.
“Antisemitism” is my final answer.
Caddy,
The world is not black and white but, unfortunately, nuance is in short supply.
Just because I criticize Biden for his handling of the Ukraine file and the IDF for how they are executing the war in Gaza doesn't mean that I have "flipped" on Biden or that I don't support a Jewish state.
If I didn't care deeply about Biden or Israel, then I wouldn't be so critical when I see either doing things they shouldn't.
I am so disappointed by the way the discussion has devolved here with regard to Ukraine and Israel. I had thought that we were all more reasonable people before the two latest wars have turned our discussions here into little more than name-calling retorts devoid of any consideration or understanding.
Chris's blog has never been about foreign policy, my primary interest. And, it has taken me far too long to accept that I should find another place to discuss these kinds of issues and not continue to hijack his headlining pieces.
So, I'm going to refrain from any further discussion of topics that Chris doesn't address in his columns.
Yeah, sure you will.
Name calling? Who here has addressed you in any manner like, say, the douchebag formerly known as michale? Were things “better” back when he still had the balls to hang around here poisoning Weigantia?
Note: y’all may think he’s “living in my brain” but far from it. Certain comments may remind me of him and I take wagering seriously and I fucking HATE so-called men that welch when they lose, especially after talking so much trash. For all I know the fucker caught Covid one time too many and has gone to meet Zombie Jesus up in the sky. Whatever.
The reason that I (I won’t speak for the others) get frustrated is that you refuse to address my points. Come to think about, kind of just like the D-F-K-A-M. You duck and run and a few days later you say stupid stuff again.
Elizabeth Miller
18
I am so disappointed by the way the discussion has devolved here with regard to Ukraine and Israel.
The devolution is (for the most part) all yours. Who else is it that takes a column regarding one thing and devolves it into an absolute unrelated repetitive prattling and endless blathering bunch of BS? If anyone else did this, you'd "board mother" the shit out of them, but since it's your nonsensical modus operandi, you turn a blind eye to it... in more ways than one.
Chris's blog has never been about foreign policy, my primary interest.
I wouldn't say "never," but it is rarely the focus.
And, it has taken me far too long to accept that I should find another place to discuss these kinds of issues and not continue to hijack his headlining pieces.
Yes, you've become the hijacking board troll.
So, I'm going to refrain from any further discussion of topics that Chris doesn't address in his columns.
As if.