POLITICO (“Biden camp reaches out to Nebraska Dems as state considers denying president crucial vote“):
President Joe Biden’s campaign officials have been in private talks with Nebraska Democrats after Republicans in the state began pushing for changes that could close off one of the president’s clearest paths to reelection.
The campaign has declined to comment on that push, which would turn Nebraska into a winner-take-all state in presidential elections, as opposed to one that allocates a portion of its Electoral College votes based on results in individual congressional districts.
But the private outreach, confirmed by two people familiar with it and granted anonymity to speak freely, suggests that the Democratic Party — from the president on down — has begun to take more seriously the possibility of the legislation, known as LB 764, passing.
Former President Donald Trump and the state’s Republican governor, Jim Pillen, are encouraging state lawmakers to move legislation that would repeal Nebraska’s 1991 law that divides electors based both on who wins the state and how each candidate performs in its three congressional districts. Republican activists have targeted the law precisely because in recent cycles, including 2020, the Democratic presidential candidate won the Omaha-based 2nd District, giving them an additional Electoral College vote.
Conservative talk show host Charlie Kirk — who sparked a viral online pressure campaign in favor of LB 764 — is expected to appear in Omaha on Tuesday to rally for the bill’s passage. Kirk has encouraged his supporters to contact legislators to move it through committee.
“There’s a decent amount of momentum behind it, but there are only a handful of legislative days left so it’d take a herculean effort to make it happen logistically,” said Barry Rubin, a Nebraska-based lobbyist. “Pressure from national groups, along with the governor and others, in addition to the enormous impact of removing the ‘blue dot’ from Nebraska’s 2nd could certainly move this along.”
So, obviously, this is purely a partisan gambit. Its intent is completely divorced from any notion of democracy or political theory.
From that standpoint, though, I could preach it either way. On the one hand, winner-take-all is clearly less representative than the current model, which is itself considerably less representative than a purely proportional model. In the last six elections, as few as 33% and as many as 42% of Nebraskans voted for the Democratic nominee yet almost all of its Electors go to the Republican. On the other hand, Nebraska is a majority Republican state and giving even a single Elector to the Democrat—when 48 of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia are winner-take-all—clearly disadvantages the chances of the majority preference of Nebraskans from winning the Presidency.
(I have more thoughts on the matter but need to get out of the door. I won’t be around today until this evening, if then.)
