Nebraska GOP tinkering with electoral votes to hurt Dem prez candidates

Nebraska Republicans are advancing a bill that would change the state’s electoral vote allocation to become winner-take-all. If passed, the bill would leave Maine as the only state that does not award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.

On the one hand, this move would bring Nebraska in line with 48 other states, plus DC. On the other hand, let’s not pretend that the move has anything to do with democratic norms. We’ve known for a long time that this is about partisan advantage. Though winner-take-all bills have been bandied about ever since the state adopted proportional allocation in 1991, the effort picked up steam after 2008, when President Obama won Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District and became the first Democrat to win an electoral vote from the state since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

I’ll give you zero guesses as to why. As Nebraska Republican Party chairman J.L. Spray explained last year, “It’s obvious that the majority of citizens of the state of Nebraska are Republicans…They want to have the maximum voice in the Electoral College.”

Nebraska 2008 Presidential election results by county, via Wikimedia Commons

Nebraska 2008 Presidential election results by county, via Wikimedia Commons

This is the flip side of the argument that Republicans are making in relatively blue states where have recently held control the governorship and legislature, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia. In those states, we were told that it would actually be more representative for the electoral votes to be apportioned the way Nebraska currently does, by congressional district, since using statewide popular vote allowed urban (read: non-white) voters to outvote rural (read: white) voters, leaving Republicans with fewer electoral votes than they felt they deserved.

To the extent that Nebraska Republicans have tried out novel arguments in defense of tinkering with the rules of the game to their advantage, they have their logic backwards. The bill’s sponsor, Beau McCoy, told the Associated Press that the goal of his legislation is to make the state “count as much as possible” in presidential elections. But as the proportional allocation bill’s original sponsor, former Sen. DiAnna Schimek, told TalkingPointsMemo, that’s one of the main benefits of proportional allocation. As she explained, with at least one electoral vote that was occasionally up for grabs, presidential candidates actually bothered to invest time and resources in the state (as Obama’s large-scale field operation in the 2nd District in 2008 showed). If the Republican candidate can take all five of the state’s electoral votes for granted every cycle, no one will ever have a reason to go there.

The only argument Republicans have put forward that makes any sense is one based in uniformity. From TPM:

Its supporters deny that the change is about preventing another 2008 scenario where Democrats peel off one of the state’s electoral votes.

“When it comes to electing the President of the United States, the process should be consistent,” Sen. Robert Hilkemann (R), who filed a motion to prioritize the bill, told TPM via email Thursday. “If consistency across the U.S. called for proportional allocation of electoral votes, I would support that.”

Still, though, what we’re left with is Republicans in a diverse set of states making claims as to the correct allocation of electoral votes that just so happen to correspond with their state-specific electoral advantage. In Nebraska, that argument just so happens to jive with a reasonable claim to uniformity, but one can’t help but be skeptical as to their motives.


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

10 Responses to “Nebraska GOP tinkering with electoral votes to hurt Dem prez candidates”

  1. Dustin Hicks says:


  2. Nicholas A Kocal says:

    So the majority of people living in Nebraska are ignorant and probably racist. They then whine when their government checks don’t come in because the republicans that the vote for do not support average Americans, like the majority on Nebraskans.

  3. Rachel Smith says:

    “my Aunnty Maria Is getting. pay hourly on the laptop 98$.”….!n99ctwo days ago black.. MkLaren P3 bought after. earning. 18,512 DoIIars,,,it was my. previous month’s check. just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month.3-5 hours job a day.and get weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars… Learn. More right Here !n99c:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExcellenceGetPayHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!n99……..

  4. MyrddinWilt says:

    Good, undermine the attempt to reverse this in the blue states.

    It is a stupid system but winner takes all only in republican states would be stupider

  5. toto says:

    A survey of Nebraska voters showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

    Support by political affiliation was 78% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others.

    By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 65% in the 1st congressional district, 66% in the 2nd district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 72% in the 3rd District.

    By gender, support for a national popular vote was 76% among women and 59% among men.

    By age, support for a national popular vote, 73% among 18–29 year-olds, 67% among 30–45 year-olds, 65% among 46–65 year-olds, and 69% among those older than 65.

    In a 2nd question with a 3-way choice among methods of awarding electoral votes,
    * 16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide)
    * 27% favored the current system
    * 57% favored a national popular vote

    Support by political affiliation for a national popular vote was still 65% among Democrats, 53% among Republicans, and 51% among others.


  6. toto says:

    Instead of LB 10 or the current system, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states with winner-take-all laws that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.


  7. toto says:

    The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways.

  8. emjayay says:

    The problem is that the electoral college system is a silly outdated by a century or two anachronism.

  9. goulo says:

    For what it’s worth (this seems a losing battle)… :)

    jibe :
    1. to be in harmony or accord; agree:
    The report does not quite jibe with the commissioner’s observations.

    jive :
    1. swing music or early jazz.
    2. the jargon associated with swing music and early jazz.
    3. Slang. deceptive, exaggerated, or meaningless talk:
    Don’t give me any of that jive!
    7. Slang. to tease; fool; kid:
    Stop jiving me!

  10. Demosthenes says:

    To dissent from this article, it is fair to have the state’s electoral votes awarded together, since it destroys GOP arguments in larger, more important states that electoral votes can be split by congressional district.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS