Loren Lippincott
Following our 17-day summer special session, Gov. Jim Pillen considered calling a second special session to attempt to pass the Winner Take All bill. Facing a certain filibuster in the legislature, the governor invited many of the state senators to the Governor’s Mansion to listen to one last pitch for this legislation. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham was at the meeting to discuss the national and international consequences of Nebraska’s currently split electoral votes. Gov. Pillen did not want to call a special session unless he had assurances from 33 senators that they would vote in favor of the bill, however, that effort did not bear fruit. There will be no special session this year to address winner take all.
However, this is too important an issue to let die and I will be carrying this bill again next legislative session. With that in mind I am including below the arguments that have been made for and against this bill in past years.
The Electoral College has 538 total votes so 50 percent plus one brings us to the magic number of 270 votes needed to win the presidency. Each state has two electoral votes for its two U.S. senators and one vote for each of their U.S. representatives, the number of which is determined by population (Nebraska has three). Forty eight states are “winner take all” with their electoral votes, meaning that the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote gets all of that state’s electoral votes. But in 1972 Maine adopted what’s known as the “District Plan” to give third party candidates for president a voice. Maine has four total electoral votes, of which two are winner take all, and two are split up according to whomever wins their congressional districts. In recent elections (2008 and 2020) electoral votes ended up split in both Maine and Nebraska.
In Nebraska the District Plan was proposed in 1990 and again in 1991 and failed both times. But then in 1992 it passed by a simple majority of 25 votes. Just three years later, in 1995 and again in 1997 the legislature decided to reverse course and voted to return to winner take all, but both times the bill was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Ben Nelson.
Attempts to return Nebraska to winner take all have been floated in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2015 but have failed each time.
The arguments for winner take all include the following:
• Nebraska adopted the district plan because leaders thought it was a trend and did so as an experiment, however, it did not catch on! No other states have joined the district plan. If it was such a good idea, historically blue states like California and New York would have joined but they don’t because they know large portions of their states are red. So, the experiment failed and is over! What resulted was a policy decision, not an experiment and it has left Nebraska out of step with the rest of the nation in the Electoral College process.
• The district plan gives the voter the feeling that their vote counts and gives them a voice. This question is, does the voter only get this feeling if the election goes his/her way? How does one measure a feeling? As past Nebraska Democrat Party Chair Vince Powers said, “Votes count as long as your vote is cast.”
• The district plan increases grassroots participation and voter turnout. However, this has not been the case. The presidential candidates and their policies drive support and turn out.
• The district plan will encourage presidential candidates to visit Nebraska. Since our state has only five electoral votes, candidates tend to visit Omaha, with its large population, while ignoring the more rural parts of the state. The district plan actually discourages candidates from addressing issues that appeal to the entire state while attracting visits to congressional districts with higher populations and income levels.
• The District Plan encourages third party candidates to capture their share of electoral votes, which increases the likelihood that no single candidate will receive the needed 270 electoral votes to win. In that event, the House of Representatives would decide the presidency. (Note: If the entire nation joined the district plan, in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have become president with 277 votes vs. Obama’s 260 votes. The district plan can favor either party but what we need is uniformity of the electoral process.
The arguments in favor of winner take all are many. One argument is that our state governor, secretary of state, attorney general, auditor, treasurer and both U.S. senators serve the entire state and are elected by the whole state, so the president, who also serves the whole state, should be elected that way also.
Secondly, if the district plan existed throughout the whole country it would guarantee massive gerrymandering – manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party.
Also the Electoral College was built to keep small states, like Nebraska, relevant and make it easier for candidates to campaign. Consider the fact that the six cities of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco equal the population of 14 rural states which include Nebraska and North and South Dakota. New York City alone has a population of 8.2 million which is more than 39 individual states.
The Electoral College prevents tyranny of the majority (sometimes called a “mobocracy”). In that same spirit of equal representation, winner take all spreads out representation and prevents pockets of power in population centers, ensuring that less populated areas are heard and are fairly represented in the electoral process.
The nation needs to be either all winner take all, as it is in 48 states, or the district plan as in Maine and Nebraska. Our current situation puts us out of step with the majority of other states and puts us at a disadvantage.
Loren Lippincott represents Legislative District 34 in the Nebraska State Senate. Read his column in the Nance County Journal.