Home  >  Nebraska  >  Much ado about all or nothing; Nebraska reconsiders divided electoral votes

Much ado about all or nothing; Nebraska reconsiders divided electoral votes

By   /   March 6, 2013  /   8 Comments

TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE: Republicans nationwide are proposing to change the electoral college system.

TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE: Republicans nationwide are proposing to change the electoral college system.

By Deena Winter | Nebraska Watchdog

LINCOLN – A Nebraska legislative committee is considering a bill that would change the way Nebraska distributes its electoral votes.

Sen. Charlie Janssen, R-Fremont, who is running for governor next year, introduced the bill that would award all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote, abandoning the current system of selecting one elector per congressional district and the remaining two electors by statewide popular vote.

Janssen said he decided to sponsor the bill this year because with the presidential election over (and all five electoral votes having gone to Romney), “It’s really not a sour grapes issue now.”

Currently, Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that dole out electoral votes by congressional district rather than a “winner take all” approach. A divided electoral vote has only happened once, in 2008, when Barack Obama picked up one electoral vote in Omaha even though he lost the statewide vote.

Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen

Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen

Meanwhile, Republicans in Michigan and Pennsylvania are looking to do the opposite of Nebraska: allocate their electoral votes by congressional district. A push to change the way electoral votes are awarded gained steam after President Obama won almost every battleground state in November.

Plans to change the electoral system have emerged in about a half dozen states, including Virginia, Ohio, Florida and Michigan — which went for Obama even though they’re solidly Republican on the state level.

Wisconsin’s governor briefly expressed interest in going to a proportional system, which would have left Obama and Mitt Romney with five electoral votes each in November. But Republicans in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida have retreated amid allegations they’re trying to rig the vote in the wake of Romney’s loss, while the GOP continues to consider the idea in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said earlier this year that changing the rules was something Republicans “ought to be looking at” in that vote Democratic in presidential elections but go Republican on the state level. The Constitution gives states the power to change the way they dole out electoral votes.

Janssen said Nebraska adopted its current system amid claims it would bring more attention and campaign dollars to the state, but instead the system reduced Nebraska’s national clout and was an incentive to gerrymander. He said since 2000, 35 states have considered changing to Nebraska’s system, but none have done so.

A similar winner-take-all bill died in the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee last year after the panel deadlocked 4-4. But the makeup of the committee has since changed, and Sen. Jim Scheer, R-Norfolk, appears to be the swing vote. Scheer said after the hearing Wednesday he isn’t leaning one way or another; during the public hearing on the bill Wednesday he signaled he doesn’t think “splitting votes is a bad thing” but it only works if all states do it.

Sen. John Murante, R-Gretna, said it’s gotten to the point where the average Republican believes Democrats have to cheat to win elections and the average Democrat believes Republicans are trying to suppress votes to win.

The governor’s spokeswoman, Jen Rae Hein, said in general, the governor favors the principle that Nebraska participate in the same system as other states – in other words, a winner-take-all system.

Secretary of State John Gale testified in support of Janssen’s bill, saying when he was first elected he thought Nebraska’s “unique system” made sense, but after studying it closer he questions whether it makes sense nationally. Dividing up votes proportionally makes it more likely the presidential election could end up deadlocked or thrown to the House of Representatives because so many third-party candidates could focus on certain districts and no candidate would be able to round up 270 electoral votes.

Former Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek testified against Janssen’s bill, which would repeal the law she proposed over 20 years ago. She proposed the system because at the time, there was talk of dispensing with the Electoral College and she thought it a “nice compromise.” But she acknowledged that if every state used Nebraska’s system, it could create problems.

“I don’t think it’s ever going to happen,” she said. “I’ve come to understand the big states are not going to do this.”

Michael Kelly, a retired government teacher who lives in the second congressional district, said he was “elated” when Schimek’s bill passed and in 2008, “for the first time in 37 years my vote was used to elect the president.” But he was disappointed that outrage afterward prompted gerrymandering that he thinks prevented the district from voting blue in November.

“Fairness was taken away,” he told lawmakers. “In future census distribution, look to where people live, not political party.”

Contact Deena Winter at deena@nebraskawatchdog.org.

Editor’s note: to subscribe to News Updates from Nebraska Watchdog at no cost, click here.

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Deena Winter

  • Kevin

    The people who will be against this the most, will be the same ones who moaned and groaned about polling places being closed across all of Douglas County.

  • http://twitter.com/rickylee41 Ricky Fulton

    Good reporting Deena. In 2008 the current system resulted in Mr Obama spending time and money in Nebraska and it paid off with the Pres winning the 2nd district.
    So I think it works here and Nebraska shouldn’t change.
    It’s a complicated issue, but when I see the Gov and Senator Area 51 support changing the way the electoral votes are distributed I say we stay put.

  • pldrcy

    I would suggest a compromise: Change back to winner takes all, with the provision that when over 50% of the states, or 50% of the combined electoral votes of any number of states convert to a district by district distributed vote the state of Nebraska shall begin distribution of electoral votes by district.

  • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

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

    NationalPopularVote

  • http://twitter.com/oldgulph s e

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1635174439 Cami Simmons

    Nebraska is a red state period. This is a ploy to keep it that way. If President Barack Obama had not gotten that one electoral vote, we would not be having this conversation, those polling places also would not have been closed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Harbert/100001406372795 David Harbert

    Nebraska is a Republican state that thru legislative gerrymandering helped keep the 2nd district in the R column.
    It is clear the people behind this want to take away Omaha’s sometime maverick votes for Democrats!
    They want to make our votes not count. I know thats the Karl Rove way, but is it the American way?

  • Nicholas

    Being from Nebraska and desiring a national popular vote is truly astounding. We have an inflated vote in this state because of the electoral college. Not to mention, the weak Democratic base would be even more worthless in a national vote.

    Gallup data from the 2008 election shows a 7 point disparity between people who lean/are Republican vs lean/are Democrat. At the end of the day, the result is the same, Nebraska goes red. Whether it is 4/538 electoral votes (2008), or the majority of the popular vote (47.3%, also 2008), which, assuming all voting age Nebraskans participated, 47.3% being Republican would be (47.3% of 1.4million = 662,200)/241 million (total numbers courtesy: US elections project).

    So, .27% by popular vote or .74% by electoral college is the total impact on the national level. In a state with a majority voting preference, like Nebraska, it’s better to keep the college. Without it, sure, Democrats have a larger influence comparatively, WITHIN Nebraska, but even less nationally.