Saying Nebraska has it right, senator changes mind on winner-take-all electoral vote bill

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Paul Hammel

LINCOLN – Support eroded Monday for returning Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its presidential electoral votes.

State Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete said Monday that she would no longer vote to halt the filibuster that could doom a proposal to return Nebraska to the winner-take-all system.

Ebke, who is a political science instructor, said her examination of history leads her to conclude that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended states to divvy up their electoral votes as Nebraska does now.

Each state, she said, gets as many votes in the Electoral College as it has representatives in Congress, and each state's House representatives are suppose to reflect the views of the districts they represent.

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/saying-nebraska-has-it-right-senator-changes-mind-on-winner/article_a81ab1ea-c685-11e4-8683-1fd91b25fd91.html

[villager]

1. Except that the Founders never envisioned the Gerrymandered "districts" we have now

That said, presumably this will be the only way Democrats ever pull electoral votes out of Nebraska, in the foreseeable future.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. The founders never envisioned 300 million people...

in 50 states and several territories.

[villager]

5. Right. And puny states, with total populations comparable to some single districts...

...having the same two Senate seats that states with millions of inhabitants are similarly restricted to.

[Romeo.lima333]

7. philly in 1776 - was the largest city with 40,000 residents

At the time of the nation’s independence the total population in the U.S. was 2.5 million. Philadelphia was the largest city with 40,000 residents – which would only fill about half the capacity at Lincoln Financial Field where its football team plays home games today. The Quaker-populated city back then was very peaceful and civil

[penndragon69]

2. Scrap the electorial system...

We can now count every vote within hours
so the President should win by popular vote only.

The system we use now was designed for the 1700's and
NOT the modern world.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Intersting thought, but imagine...

the cost of battling for a few votes in every district around the country.

[Thespian2]

6. Years ago, Georgia

had a similar system within the state called "the county-unit" system. It was designed to keep Atlanta from having too much power. It became a failed system and was scrapped. The Electoral College should have been scrapped at least 75 years ago.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

13. Or at least before the year 2000!

[Fred Sanders]

8. This "research" is nothing more than GOP talking points..they will stop at nothing to steal the WH.

Her "conclusion" would have President Romney now doing the biding of the corporations, Churches and the war machine.

[mvymvy]

9. Founders did not intend states to divvy up their electoral votes as Nebraska does now

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

The Founders did not intend states to divvy up their electoral votes as Nebraska does now

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the district or statewide vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. District and state-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the methods rejected by the Founders in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson argued that Virginia should switch from its then-existing district system of electing presidential electors.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

For example, Massachusetts has enacted 11 different methods.
● In 1789, Massachusetts had a two-step system in which the voters cast ballots indicating their preference for presidential elector by district, and the legislature chose from the top two vote-getters in each district (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1792, the voters were allowed to choose presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1796, the voters elected presidential electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing only the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1800, the legislature took back the power to pick all of the state’s presidential electors (entirely excluding the voters).
● In 1804, the voters were allowed to elect 17 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.
● In 1808, the legislature decided to pick the electors itself.
● In 1812, the voters elected six presidential electors from one district, five electors from another district, four electors from another, three electors from each of two districts, and one elector from a sixth district.
● In 1816, Massachusetts again returned to state legislative choice.
● In 1820, the voters were allowed to elect 13 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.
● Then, in 1824, Massachusetts adopted its 10th method of awarding electoral votes, namely the statewide winner-take-all rule that is in effect today.
● Finally, in 2010, Massachusetts changed its method of appointing its presidential electors by enacting the National Popular Vote interstate compact. This change will go into effect when states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 out of 538) enact the same compact.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

[mvymvy]

10. The National Popular Vote bill

Instead of either the current system or the bill now being debated, The National Popular Vote bill (LB112) would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing district or state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

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

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of 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 Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Historically, 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 every state surveyed recently.
In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson, supports National Popular Vote.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

[mvymvy]

11. 67% of Nebraska Voters Support a National Popular Vote

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

The 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.

In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

With the current district or statewide winner-take-all methods, there are a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states, like Nebraska, that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

NationalPopularVote

[davidpdx]

12. For Nebraska I don't really see there being any issue

Most of the time the entire state is going to be red anyway. 2008 was an unusual circumstance where a good candidate, high voter turnout and a good ground game resulted in netting one of Nebraska's EV's. If Clinton had been the nominee I very much doubt she would have won that particular district.

The problem would be if other states started to do this, especially the reliably blue states.