On September 23rd, a state senator in Nebraska, USA cast a vote against reverting the state’s electoral college system back to the winner-takes-all format. This decision has potentially stalled, giving Vice President Kamala Harris a better chance against former President Trump in the upcoming election. This also emphasizes the importance of one electoral vote in Nebraska in determining the outcome of this year’s presidential race.
Apart from Nebraska and Maine, all other states in the USA follow the winner-takes-all system when it comes to electoral votes. This means that the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in a state receives all of that state’s electoral votes.
The number of electoral votes in each state is equal to the state’s total number of congressmen – including members of the House and Senate. All of a state’s electoral votes together make up an “Electoral College.” Nebraska’s Electoral College has 5 electoral votes.
Nebraska and Maine adopt a split vote system for electoral votes: initially assigning two electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner, and then allocating one electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district. Nebraska has 3 congressional districts, while Maine has 2.
Nebraska previously used the winner-takes-all method but abolished it in 1991, implementing new rules starting from the 1992 election. Supporters of the new rules argue that it better reflects the views of voters and can attract presidential candidates to smaller states that might otherwise be overlooked.
The first instance of an electoral college split in Nebraska occurred in the 2008 election when Barack Obama won the state’s 2nd congressional district, marking the first time a Democratic presidential candidate had won an electoral vote in the state since 1964. This district includes the largest city in the state, Omaha, and its suburbs.
Maine has had the new rule since 1972, and the first split in the electoral college occurred in the 2016 election when Trump won Maine’s 2nd congressional district, the first time since 1988 that Maine had voted for a Republican presidential candidate.
In the 2020 election, both states saw split results in their 2nd districts again, where candidates who lost the statewide popular vote won the electoral vote, causing another scenario of an electoral college split.
Nebraska is one of nine states that have consistently voted for Republican presidential candidates since 1964. Despite not following the winner-takes-all rule since 1992, Republican presidential candidates still often secure all of the state’s electoral votes.
In two exceptions to this trend, Obama won the state’s 2nd district in 2008, and Joe Biden won it in 2020. The Republican advantage in voter registration in this district has been decreasing, with 25% of voters currently unaffiliated with any party.
Presidential candidates need 270 out of the total 538 electoral votes to win the White House. Reports suggest that in this year’s election, Vice President Harris could win crucial battleground states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, while Trump could secure wins in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. This scenario might lead to Harris gaining 269 electoral votes, with Trump at 268, including Nebraska’s 4 votes.
In this situation, if Harris wins Nebraska’s 2nd district, she would become president. However, reverting to a winner-takes-all system in Nebraska could lead to a 269-269 tie between Trump and Harris, and the final decision on the presidency would rest with the US Congress, where each state gets one vote, potentially favoring Trump.
Nebraska’s Republicans have long sought to reinstate the winner-takes-all rule but have not been able to secure the necessary legislative majority.
Legislatively, Nebraska’s parliament is nonpartisan and unicameral. Presently, out of 49 seats, known Republican members hold 33, exactly two-thirds majority.
This Republican lead was attained in April this year when State Senator Mike McDonnell switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party due to the Democrats’ condemnation of his support for abortion restrictions.
This move reignited discussions within the Nebraska GOP about returning to the winner-takes-all system.
However, in McDonnell’s 5th legislative district, approximately 45% of registered voters are Democrats who strongly oppose reverting to the winner-takes-all format. Less than 26% of voters in that district are Republicans.
McDonnell has informed Republican Governor Jim Pillen that he will not support any changes to the state’s electoral vote allocation system before this year’s election. His statement on September 23rd aligns with his previous remarks.
In the statement, McDonnell said, “I have advised Governor Pillen that I will not change my long-held position. I oppose any attempts to change our electoral college system before the 2024 election. I also encourage him, and my colleagues in the chamber, to pass a constitutional amendment next year to allow Nebraska residents to definitively decide this issue through a vote.”
McDonnell’s stance indicates that Republicans in the Nebraska parliament lack the two-thirds majority needed to implement this change before the November 5th election.
He believes that there is insufficient time for such a change now: “In recent weeks, the discussion on whether to change how we allocate electoral college votes has resurfaced. I respect the desire of some colleagues to have this discussion and have spent time carefully listening to the views of Nebraskans and national leaders on this issue. After careful consideration, it is clear to me that with 43 days until Election Day, now is not the time to make this change.”
McDonnell’s term is limited, and he will leave office in early January next year. He encourages the governor and legislature to try again next year, allowing the voters to decide.
“It should be the Nebraska voters, not any party’s politicians, who have the ultimate say in how we select a president,” he added.
According to Nebraska’s constitution, a new law passed by a simple majority in the parliament takes effect three months after adjournment; too late to affect the November 5th proposal.
The constitution also permits the legislature to add emergency clauses to make laws effective immediately, but bills with these clauses must pass with a two-thirds majority.
The parliament’s rules stipulate that the same two-thirds majority is required to end a filibuster, hindering a legislative measure.
Currently, Nebraska’s parliament is adjourned, and plans to reconvene in January next year. If Governor Pillen wishes to try again, he would have to call a special session. However, he stated that he would not convene a special session without clear indicators of the potential success of another attempt.
Former President Trump criticized State Senator McDonnell for opposing the return to the winner-takes-all system, calling it a move for attention.
Following McDonnell’s September 23rd announcement, Trump responded on his social media platform: “It would have been better and much cheaper for everyone! Unfortunately, a Democrat State Senator named Mike McDonnell switched to be a Republican(?) State Senator and decided to block a great common-sense Republican victory. It’s just another ‘pile on’!”
Trump also thanked Governor Pillen and other Republicans for their efforts, stating, “I want to thank Governor Jim Pillen of Nebraska for his efforts to simplify the state’s electoral map for Republicans.”
(Note: This article is a fictional creation and not associated with any real news network or event)