Nebraska Electoral College Change Thwarted
By one vote.
As I noted over the weekend, there was an attempt to change the way Nebraska allocates its electoral votes in a way that would have benefitted Trump by walling off voters in and around Omaha. As The Hill reports, that effort has failed: Nebraska governor: No plans for special session on winner-take-all electoral system.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) said Tuesday he would not be calling a special session for lawmakers to consider changing the state’s electoral system to a winner-take-all one after a key GOP lawmaker rejected a bid to flip his vote.
“My team and I have worked relentlessly to secure a filibuster-proof 33-vote majority to get winner-take-all passed before the November election,” Pillen said in a statement. “Given everything at stake for Nebraska and our country, we have left every inch on the field to get this done.”
So, let’s note for the history books, Governor Pillen and 32 GOP state Senators were purposefully trying to engage in a last-minute legal maneuver to make the electoral vote count less democratic in his state. To be as clear as possible: the odds are good that based on the legal votes of citizens in Nebraska one electoral vote would go to Harris, and Pillen and friends wanted to take that away. This was not some theoretical move, but a deliberate act to try and influence the outcome of the 2024 presidential election without any votes being different, but rather simply what procedure of counting would be applied.
As I like to note, the rules matter.
The Nebraska Republican singled out state Sen. Mike McDonnell — a Democrat-turned-Republican — who announced Monday that he would not be changing his mind about updating the state’s electoral system. The governor noted he didn’t have the needed votes to overcome a filibuster over such a move.
The history of this time period will look back on a number of Republican officials who did not bow to the Trumpist pressures within their party. (see, also, Brad Raffensperger in GA and Rusty Bowers in AZ).
“Senator Mike McDonnell of Omaha has confirmed he is unwilling to vote for winner-takes-it-all before the 2024 election,” Pillen wrote. “That is profoundly disappointing to me and the many others who have worked so earnestly to ensure all Nebraskans’ votes are sought after equally this election.”
This is disingenuous at best. All he and his allies were trying to do was take one electoral vote off the table for the Democrats. And moreover, to make his state an utter non-entity in terms of votes being sought after in the state. At least with NE02 being competitive, the Trump and Harris campaigns have to pay attention to some Nebraskans.
Changing the rules during an electoral cycle knowing that the results of the rule change will alter the outcome based on likely voter behavior is profoundly anti-democratic. It is very much the stuff of authoritarian regimes.
It is: we are going to lose, so we want to change the rules so we win. Full stop.
I remember Republicans some years back attempting to introduce the district-based system into Pennsylvania. The idea was that they could then use gerrymandering to “win” PA at the presidential level even if the Dem won the state’s popular vote.
There’s no underlying principle, no belief on whether winner-take-all or the district system is a more legitimate method for allocating EVs in any state, there isn’t even much thought to the long-term consequences and how it might backfire on them down the line–it’s just manipulate the system any way you can to gain whatever short-term benefit you need in the moment.
I can honestly preach this one either way. We both agree that a national popular vote would be preferable to the EC and that a proportional EC would be better than the current model. But, given the realities of the system, it strikes me as odd that two states—both of which are extremely tilted to one party— dilute their vote in this way. Yes, it’s more democratic. But it perversely makes it slightly less likely that the overwhelming majority candidate in their state wins the election.
Now, I agree that changing this at this late stage of the game is problematic. But it’s not like we haven’t known that the system was likely to dilute the Nebraska-majority will (Republican in every election going back to 1940 with the exception of the 1964 blowout) since its inception.
I’m actually surprised you’re being that generous, Dr. Taylor. I don’t see even a hint of plausible deniability in the governor’s statement, just a naked lie.
@James Joyner:
Countered by it making it slightly more likely that the overwhelming majority candidate near Omaha wins the election. We can play this game, but literally everybody knows the proposal was going the wrong direction in terms of democracy.
And the fact is, the single EC vote up for grabs is appropriately balanced by Maine.
Reporting seems to indicate there were omne or two other holdouts behind-the-scenes who did not go public. So that’s…something, I guess.
@James Joyner:
That’s because, as strange as the concept might seem, these small states benefit from the greater attention they get from having candidates go down there to campaign; otherwise they’d be as ignored at the national level as Kansas or Vermont. Traditionally, at least, politicians were sometimes influenced by incentives other than furthering the chances of their party winning the next presidential election.
Keep in mind also that these systems were put in place long before they ended up actually splitting their EVs. Nebraska introduced it in 1992, and it wouldn’t be until 2008 that a Dem would win an EV from the state. Then the legislature tried to avoid this outcome in later elections by gerrymandering the district to make it harder for Dems to win–which worked in the following two elections.
Maine introduced the system in 1972, and at that point it was still a very Republican state in both of its districts. After it shifted toward the Dems in the 1990s, both districts continued to reflect the statewide partisan lean; it didn’t split its EVs until 2016.
Personally, I think both states will soon switch to winner-take-all, albeit after this election.
@James Joyner:
I’d love to know how this came about. Whatever you think about the system, it is the actual system, and putting yourself at a disadvantage because you wish it were different strikes me as worse than pointless. It would be like a baseball team not using a designated hitter because they disagree with the rule that allows it. Totally noble and righteous, and completely and stupidly self-defeating.
@James Joyner:
I will admit that I have a real problem with that framing. I think it is important to stress that this is not an abstract discussion about WTA v. the district method. This is plainly an attempt to shift an electoral vote. As such, the GOP deserves no cover.
@James Joyner:
This is worth a separate note. The notion that there is a “Nebraska” preference is purely an artifact of the EC and arbitrary lines. I think we need to remember that.
Also: I could argue that the only thing that makes Nebraska important in this election is this “dilution.”
Look: I am on record about the flaws of the district method. But I do not want to lose sight of the fact this is not about any abstract principles. It is about an attempt to legislate an electoral vote from one candidate to the other in the context of an ongoing election.
I’m walking away with the feeling that this dispute has a pronounced whole-is-less-than-the-sum-of-its-parts vibe. For the people who construct alternate-reality electoral maps: Are there any vote patterns that happen in your hypothetical realities where shifting the one Nebraska/Maine electoral vote changes the outcome of the election?
Everything the GOP is doing now revolves around shenanigans, no actually, you know, winning. Right now, RFK is trying to argue in Court that he should be allowed to stay on the NY ballot but also that he should be taken off the Wisconsin ballots with machine-wrecking stickers placed over his name.
It’s a choice between two very bad systems that distort democracy.
At least with winner take all, the voting regions (states) cannot have their boundaries shifted in partisan ways to try to select the voters. But changing so close to the election is just naked partisanship.
(Proportional numbers of electors based on the statewide vote would be more democratic)
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Yes. If Harris wins MI, WI, and PA, but loses NC, GA, AZ, and NV AND the Nebraska vote was changed the EC would be tied 269-269 and go the House.
In other other words, the NE vote in question may be the winning vote for Harris.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Oh, I fully concur that this is an attempt to take a vote that’s in play for Democrats and ensure it goes to Republicans. But Nebraska is an overwhelmingly Republican state and 49 other states and DC award their entire slate to the at-large winner; the current method thus dilutes Nebraska’s overwhelming majority preference vis-a-vis other states.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: It actually would be a pretty likely scenario if current swing state polling was solidified into the outcome, along with the NE change in the EC, as Dr. Taylor notes above.
@Steven L. Taylor: Thanks!
ETA: @Jen: And also to you!
@MarkedMan: Disagree with the analogy. This gets attention and pandering to those states that otherwise would not happen at all. They’re getting an actual advantage, unlike the stupid baseball team.
@Steven L. Taylor:
This.
People have preferences; dirt does not. The idea that “which preferences are more prevalent in Nebraska?” (or Ohio or Hawai’i or …) should affect the outcome of elections, separately from “which preferences are more prevalent among voters?”, is a historical artifact and an idiocy. Especially when Nebraska dirt already gets much more say in Congress than California dirt or New Jersey dirt.