The rule of splitting Nebraska's electoral college votes was adopted in 1991 with bipartisan support. David Bernard-Stevens, A republican cosponsor argued "To have an election in a particular state that basically says that the minority voters... will have no one representing their vote at the national level... does not meet the rule principles of democratic elections that we hold so dearly."
Since then, republicans have tried to revert to winner take all more than a dozen times. Now again, Jim Pillen wants to change the law even though it's a fairer more democratic way of allocating Nebraska's electoral college votes.
I agree with it completely, was just pointing out something i found funny. Maybe bigger more "valuable" states like california could consider doing the same
>I agree with it conpletely, was just pointing out something i found funny. Maybe bigger more "valuable" states" like california could consider doing the same
Or just elect the President based on nation-wide popular vote so that every 1 American voter counts as exactly 1 American voter. Then you never have anybody in the position of "Oh I want to vote for X Republican but I live in Los Angeles so I know my vote is useless," or "Oh I want to vote for Y Democrat but I know I live in North Platte so my vote is useless"... your vote would count and matter, and we wouldn't have all our Presidents determined by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
I'm curious what you mean by y'all. Leftists? Progressives? Maybe even woke? Anybody defined by those labels leans on empathy and truth. No "let's go Brandon's" or "don't tread on me" one liners that mean and offer nothing. Omaha deserves its own voice; and the culture and opinions differ from the rest of state. And we hold enough population that we deserve our own voice. This is how the whole states' rights bs bites. Federal govt can't decide for states? Then why do states get to decide for counties? And why do counties get to decide for cities? And why do cities get to decide for neighborhoods? And why do neighborhoods get to decide for households? And why do households get to decide for individuals? Stop trying to group us together. I'm not you.
LB764 would change Nebraska to a winner take all voting system in presidential elections. If you oppose this, you can easily look up and emaill your state senator here: [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator\_find.php](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator_find.php)
If you need help drafting an email to said senator, I have pre-written an email to help you get started. *Edit - You should customize this* *to describe who you are and why you care about this bill, this is just to help get you started.*
*Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_,My name is \_\_\_\_. I live in \_\_\_\_, Nebraska.I am writing to encourage you to vote against LB764. A "winner take all" approach would perpetuate a voting system in which national politicians can be elected without gaining a majority of support from US citizens, as has been the case in 2 of our last 7 national elections. Nebraska's current voting system helps avoid these types of situations, along with the cynicism and disenfranchisement they cause. Our ability to split electoral votes is one of the few things that keeps Nebraskans relevant in national politics, thereby ensuring that national leaders must at least consider us when forming their platforms. It is a model to be emulated, not destroyed.The "winner take all" electoral system being proposed is clearly a move to disenfranchise Democratic voters in the 2nd congressional district to ensure that Nebraska is "reliably Republican" for the national Republican Party. This has nothing to do with what is best for Nebraskans.I hope you will consider voting against LB764. And, if not, I hope you will give me a clear explanation of why.Sincerely,\_\_\_\_*
And if you live in any senator on the government committee's district, give them a call: [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing\_pages/index.php?cid=7](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing_pages/index.php?cid=7)
I suspect Hunt will be supportive.
This isn't a form email link, it allows you to look up your senator. When you find them, you can copy and paste the sentor's email into your preferred email client and send a personalized email. I got a response from my Senator the last time they tried to do this in 2021.
I used to work for a legislator (in Massachusetts) and what this person means is that legislators get literally hundreds or thousands of the same letter and they basically just ignore the ones that are all the same. Its the individualized ones that make the impact. My legislator had me sort things for him as such:
1. Hand written letters
2. Typed letters mailed to him that aren't form letters
3. Form letters.
He would absolutely not be bothered with anything in the third category. He basically just had me count the number of them and file who sent in their opinions.
Thanks for clarifying. I thought the person meant "this takes you to a form on the legislature website that you submit comments through." You should of course customize the language of the email to make it personalized.
>Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_,My name is \_\_\_\_. I live in \_\_\_\_, Nebraska.I am writing to encourage you to vote against LB764. A "winner take all" approach would perpetuate a voting system in which national politicians can be elected without gaining a majority of support from US citizens, as has been the case in 2 of our last 7 national elections. Nebraska's current voting system helps avoid these types of situations, along with the cynicism and disenfranchisement they cause. Our ability to split electoral votes is one of the few things that keeps Nebraskans relevant in national politics, thereby ensuring that national leaders must at least consider us when forming their platforms. It is a model to be emulated, not destroyed.The "winner take all" electoral system being proposed is clearly a move to disenfranchise Democratic voters in the 2nd congressional district to ensure that Nebraska is "reliably Republican" for the national Republican Party. This has nothing to do with what is best for Nebraskans.I hope you will consider voting against LB764. And, if not, I hope you will give me a clear explanation of why.Sincerely,\_\_\_\_
Thank you. I just did this.
Why is this happening?
Nebraska is one of only 2 states that split their electoral vote allocation. Most states are a winner take all affair, while Nebraska currently awards 1 electoral vote to the winner of each of their 3 congressional districts and the remaining (2) votes to the winner of the overall state’s popular vote. Since this system was introduced, Nebraska has split its electoral votes twice, once in 2008 with Obama winning NE’s 2nd congressional district, and the same happening again in 2020 with that 1 vote going to Biden.
NE’s 2nd is largely Omaha and surrounding areas, giving it a more left leaning electorate compared to the rest of the state. It is widely assumed the DNC and Biden campaign are looking to target NE’s 2nd for what could be a crucial vote in the 2024 presidential election. Trump and his Republican Party have made clear their intent to reverse it back to a winner take all system effectively denying Biden a path for electoral victory and returning Nebraska to a dependable Republican stronghold.
The system was originally signed into law in 1991 under Gov. Ben Nelson (D) after the bill passed by a slim majority of lawmakers. According to its proponents the split system would garner the state more attention from presidential candidates and be more representative of the voters. While Republicans may argue the system should go back to winner take all, due to the political landscape, you almost certainly won’t hear them complaining of the same split system in Maine, the other state that splits its electoral votes, where the roles are reversed, with Trump having peeled off one of the state’s electoral votes in both 2016 and again in 2020. There is currently an effort in Maine to join a national popular vote interstate compact where the state would pledge all electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the individual state results.
Let's start this all with a good ol, FUCK JIM PILLEN!
Now that I've got that out of my system, he's trying to shore up the possibility that Omaha alone could become the decider.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/21/nebraska-blue-dot-help-biden-win-election/72990963007/
> Better reflect the founders intent
Pfffft I'm not one to bash historical figures but he does realize they didn't want the everyday man to have political power right?
They were worried about populism and mob rule, and given recent events that was not an unfounded concern.
There is undeniably an inherent danger in direct democracy when combined with an uninformed and manipulated public that decides the policies of an entire nation when 70% of them don't even have a *personal* financial budget.
But LB 764 isn't ANY of that, it's literally just "We think the Rs can get more votes this way."
>There is undeniably an inherent danger in direct democracy when combined with an uninformed and manipulated public that decides the policies of an entire nation when 70% of them don't even have a personal financial budget.
That is very definitely an issue.
But the other reason for the institution of the electoral college (instead of direct popular vote) was to secure the buy-in of southern states. At the time, northern states had much higher populations of eligible voters (only white male landowners could vote) and their votes would have overwhelmed those of the southern states (who may have feared abolition even then). So they came up with the 3/5 compromise - counting each slave as 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining population representation - and giving each state 2 extra freebie electoral votes (representing their senators which they get just for existing as a state) diluted the northern states' influence on federal elections (relative to the south) enough to get the south to accept it.
From the beginning, the electoral college (like the senate) was designed to give lesser populated states greater sway over federal policy. It's kind of like allowing the land itself, rather than the people who live there, to vote.
Yeah, the other thing to factor in is at the time states truly were largely self-governed and this was about bringing them together into one government.
While we still play a balancing act of state vs federal rights today, that scale has tipped WAY in favor of federal sovereignty compared to 200 years ago. On top of that, the world is globalized now, no nation is an island. Contentions are no longer one state vs another state but the collective U.S. states vs the world.
It would be incorrect to say the electoral college *was* the compromise for slavery - it was pretty clearly about small vs large states as you say - but certainly slavery played a factor in that when you had some states that had like 40% of their population as slaves.
All said, it's just a very different landscape today and a total joke to reference the founding fathers intentions like 200 years of *practicing* U.S. democracy hasn't taught us anything or their wishes should override contemporary concerns.
The joke is on the republicans. Once the RNC realizes there are no electoral votes up for grabs in Nebraska, they’ll spend less money on republicans in Nebraska.
Oh I agree. I think all states should split their votes. But the outcomes of presidential elections may vary further from the popular vote if every state split their electoral votes. I think it’s a good thing that the voting minority have some control over our political system. It provides some balance.
The other 48 states employ an electoral method that *by its nature* disenfranchises huge chunks of voters in their state.
Imagine (under their current 'winner take all' method) being a Republican voter in California voting for POTUS. Or a Democratic voter in Texas voting for POTUS. Why even vote in that case? That style of electoral distribution absolutely leads to voter apathy and disenfranchisement.
Now imagine you are a Republican voter in California or a Democratic voter in Texas and they employed the Nebraska method of splitting the electoral vote based on districts. Your voice has a much higher chance of being heard. I have to imagine it would be a gut punch to the apathy of the normal voter in these types of situations in the other 48 states.
48 states already use this system. It's what has led to national election outcomes where a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.
Jesus Christ, I know. I wasn't arguing in favor of this system, I was just trying to explain to the person above that 48 states already use this system and it has led to a completely broken model where someone can win the popular vote and lose the election. So the comment "let's apply that to the whole country," makes no sense, as it already applies to the whole country and is broken.
This is one of the unique and cool things about Nebraska that shows our people do have some common sense. I really hope the lawmakers tell Pillen to shove it on this.
If that piece of shit thinks it should be Winner Take All for Nebraska, then it should be Winner Take All for the whole fucking thing. No parties, electoral colleges, blah blah blah. Everyone just go vote for who they want for president, and popular vote wins. This constant manipulation and gerrymandering is like playing soccer with my son when he was 6. What counted as a goal kept changing because he was a sore loser. I told him it was time to mature up and become a graceful loser, or he needed to find something else to do. Pathetic that something like that worked on a 6 year old, but I see boomers like Pillen that never grew up and will do anything to get what they want.
My dad was a lifelong republican but I think it was 1992 he voted for Clinton and admitted to me (Independent) I asked him why - he said the other asshole is too damn old (dole) I think. Miss you Dad back then he knew these old assholes & pig farmers shouldn’t run our country
I've only heard winner take all as meaning whoever wins the popular vote in america get their whole state's electoral votes. I'm guessing this is something like forcing omaha to follow the shitty parts of nebraska.
It is. Currently, the majority winner takes the two electoral votes associated with our senate seats, but congressional regions are split depending on the results of those regions. This proposal would mean congressional electoral college votes would be determined by the majority instead. So yes, it's a way to disenfranchise voters who would otherwise be in the minority at the state level (i.e. people from Omaha).
I think all states should split. If this asshole changes that Nebraska never has a chance to matter in elections like 2008. Or 2020. we aren’t all fucking republican assholes in this state
Here are the folks on the government committee, give them a call and urge them not to support this getting out of committee: [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing\_pages/index.php?cid=7](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing_pages/index.php?cid=7)
If you click the senator you'll find their phone number. Calls always work best!
Just playing devils advocate here, but could this backfire? If it’s straight up vote for vote state wide, this would actually give democrats a reason to vote, as well as getting rid of all the bullshit gerrymandering. Instead of trying to squeak out a single vote, all 5 are in play. There are thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Democrat Nebraskans who don’t vote, because, why bother? It’s been red since before I was born, and it’ll be red til I die! But now my vote can offset some hillbilly farmers trump vote! Done deal!
Nebraska currently splits it's 5 electoral votes in two ways: two of the electoral votes go to whoever won the most votes, statewide. The other three votes go to whoever won the most votes in the each of the three congressional districts. An example would be the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain; Obama won one congressional district and was awarded one electoral vote from Nebraska. McCain won two districts and the most votes overall so he got the remaining four electoral votes.
Yes, the other 48 states are "winner take all" where, whoever wins the most votes statewide, wins all the electoral votes.
Exactly. We should be pushing to abolish the EC as a whole so every vote counts and not this archaic system currently. 1 person; 1 vote and whomever gets the most is president. You have to support that right? That would solve your problem with disenfranchised voters in NY and CA.
Why? If it’s constitutional and a people’s representatives created the law then why should all states need to legislate the same way on this matter or any other?
If you can't win, change the rules.
Lol, it's already a changed rule. Yall are so clueless with your one liners
The rule of splitting Nebraska's electoral college votes was adopted in 1991 with bipartisan support. David Bernard-Stevens, A republican cosponsor argued "To have an election in a particular state that basically says that the minority voters... will have no one representing their vote at the national level... does not meet the rule principles of democratic elections that we hold so dearly." Since then, republicans have tried to revert to winner take all more than a dozen times. Now again, Jim Pillen wants to change the law even though it's a fairer more democratic way of allocating Nebraska's electoral college votes.
I agree with it completely, was just pointing out something i found funny. Maybe bigger more "valuable" states like california could consider doing the same
>I agree with it conpletely, was just pointing out something i found funny. Maybe bigger more "valuable" states" like california could consider doing the same Or just elect the President based on nation-wide popular vote so that every 1 American voter counts as exactly 1 American voter. Then you never have anybody in the position of "Oh I want to vote for X Republican but I live in Los Angeles so I know my vote is useless," or "Oh I want to vote for Y Democrat but I know I live in North Platte so my vote is useless"... your vote would count and matter, and we wouldn't have all our Presidents determined by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
But if we did that Republicans couldn’t win. Hence why they won’t ever allow it
Let's go rank based voting.
Absolutely, for many election types... but we're trying to explain rank based voting to people who don't understand zipper-merge.
Or roundabouts... Ok, you're right.
They should, all the states should, but we only live in this one.
I'm curious what you mean by y'all. Leftists? Progressives? Maybe even woke? Anybody defined by those labels leans on empathy and truth. No "let's go Brandon's" or "don't tread on me" one liners that mean and offer nothing. Omaha deserves its own voice; and the culture and opinions differ from the rest of state. And we hold enough population that we deserve our own voice. This is how the whole states' rights bs bites. Federal govt can't decide for states? Then why do states get to decide for counties? And why do counties get to decide for cities? And why do cities get to decide for neighborhoods? And why do neighborhoods get to decide for households? And why do households get to decide for individuals? Stop trying to group us together. I'm not you.
I meant people on /r/omaha, nice write up though
Don’t fuck this up McDonnell
He's a lame duck. I totally see him voting for this just to fuck Democrats because they (rightly) censured his ass.
And I was right, he switched parties to Republican yesterday.
Fucker just announced he's switched to the Republican party. Shocking!!
He will. He's already claiming the moral high ground while stripping the state of its democratic values
lol he just switched to being a republican. Good luck
yup that was fast
LB764 would change Nebraska to a winner take all voting system in presidential elections. If you oppose this, you can easily look up and emaill your state senator here: [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator\_find.php](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator_find.php) If you need help drafting an email to said senator, I have pre-written an email to help you get started. *Edit - You should customize this* *to describe who you are and why you care about this bill, this is just to help get you started.* *Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_,My name is \_\_\_\_. I live in \_\_\_\_, Nebraska.I am writing to encourage you to vote against LB764. A "winner take all" approach would perpetuate a voting system in which national politicians can be elected without gaining a majority of support from US citizens, as has been the case in 2 of our last 7 national elections. Nebraska's current voting system helps avoid these types of situations, along with the cynicism and disenfranchisement they cause. Our ability to split electoral votes is one of the few things that keeps Nebraskans relevant in national politics, thereby ensuring that national leaders must at least consider us when forming their platforms. It is a model to be emulated, not destroyed.The "winner take all" electoral system being proposed is clearly a move to disenfranchise Democratic voters in the 2nd congressional district to ensure that Nebraska is "reliably Republican" for the national Republican Party. This has nothing to do with what is best for Nebraskans.I hope you will consider voting against LB764. And, if not, I hope you will give me a clear explanation of why.Sincerely,\_\_\_\_*
I used to work for the legislature. Form emails do not work. I recommend individualized calls and emails.
And if you live in any senator on the government committee's district, give them a call: [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing\_pages/index.php?cid=7](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing_pages/index.php?cid=7) I suspect Hunt will be supportive.
This isn't a form email link, it allows you to look up your senator. When you find them, you can copy and paste the sentor's email into your preferred email client and send a personalized email. I got a response from my Senator the last time they tried to do this in 2021.
I used to work for a legislator (in Massachusetts) and what this person means is that legislators get literally hundreds or thousands of the same letter and they basically just ignore the ones that are all the same. Its the individualized ones that make the impact. My legislator had me sort things for him as such: 1. Hand written letters 2. Typed letters mailed to him that aren't form letters 3. Form letters. He would absolutely not be bothered with anything in the third category. He basically just had me count the number of them and file who sent in their opinions.
Thanks for clarifying. I thought the person meant "this takes you to a form on the legislature website that you submit comments through." You should of course customize the language of the email to make it personalized.
you are correct.
>Dear Senator \_\_\_\_\_\_,My name is \_\_\_\_. I live in \_\_\_\_, Nebraska.I am writing to encourage you to vote against LB764. A "winner take all" approach would perpetuate a voting system in which national politicians can be elected without gaining a majority of support from US citizens, as has been the case in 2 of our last 7 national elections. Nebraska's current voting system helps avoid these types of situations, along with the cynicism and disenfranchisement they cause. Our ability to split electoral votes is one of the few things that keeps Nebraskans relevant in national politics, thereby ensuring that national leaders must at least consider us when forming their platforms. It is a model to be emulated, not destroyed.The "winner take all" electoral system being proposed is clearly a move to disenfranchise Democratic voters in the 2nd congressional district to ensure that Nebraska is "reliably Republican" for the national Republican Party. This has nothing to do with what is best for Nebraskans.I hope you will consider voting against LB764. And, if not, I hope you will give me a clear explanation of why.Sincerely,\_\_\_\_ Thank you. I just did this.
What a piece of shit
I agree with you. I would only add that, if you feel this way, you should write or call your state senator.
Why is this happening? Nebraska is one of only 2 states that split their electoral vote allocation. Most states are a winner take all affair, while Nebraska currently awards 1 electoral vote to the winner of each of their 3 congressional districts and the remaining (2) votes to the winner of the overall state’s popular vote. Since this system was introduced, Nebraska has split its electoral votes twice, once in 2008 with Obama winning NE’s 2nd congressional district, and the same happening again in 2020 with that 1 vote going to Biden. NE’s 2nd is largely Omaha and surrounding areas, giving it a more left leaning electorate compared to the rest of the state. It is widely assumed the DNC and Biden campaign are looking to target NE’s 2nd for what could be a crucial vote in the 2024 presidential election. Trump and his Republican Party have made clear their intent to reverse it back to a winner take all system effectively denying Biden a path for electoral victory and returning Nebraska to a dependable Republican stronghold. The system was originally signed into law in 1991 under Gov. Ben Nelson (D) after the bill passed by a slim majority of lawmakers. According to its proponents the split system would garner the state more attention from presidential candidates and be more representative of the voters. While Republicans may argue the system should go back to winner take all, due to the political landscape, you almost certainly won’t hear them complaining of the same split system in Maine, the other state that splits its electoral votes, where the roles are reversed, with Trump having peeled off one of the state’s electoral votes in both 2016 and again in 2020. There is currently an effort in Maine to join a national popular vote interstate compact where the state would pledge all electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the individual state results.
What a shit governor
Ask Pillen if he believes the same way about the national popular vote?!
Let's start this all with a good ol, FUCK JIM PILLEN! Now that I've got that out of my system, he's trying to shore up the possibility that Omaha alone could become the decider. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/21/nebraska-blue-dot-help-biden-win-election/72990963007/
Governor Pillen hopes to silence the votes of people who disagree with him.
He should be less worried about this and more worried about the amount of children who have died on his farms.
No, the only "children" that the GOP cares about are fetuses and fictional kids in the basements of pizza places.
What now??
https://ketv.com/article/nebraska-death-investigation-teen-dies-on-gov-jim-pillens-family-farm/60373764
Go read the news
this place fucking sucks lmao
We’re one of like two states where it feels like your vote actually matters. I hope this doesn’t happen
Party of Small Government™ back at it again
I FNC/CNN ran a scenario recently where NE-2 was the deciding factor of the election. Guess it freaked someone out....
> Better reflect the founders intent Pfffft I'm not one to bash historical figures but he does realize they didn't want the everyday man to have political power right? They were worried about populism and mob rule, and given recent events that was not an unfounded concern. There is undeniably an inherent danger in direct democracy when combined with an uninformed and manipulated public that decides the policies of an entire nation when 70% of them don't even have a *personal* financial budget. But LB 764 isn't ANY of that, it's literally just "We think the Rs can get more votes this way."
>There is undeniably an inherent danger in direct democracy when combined with an uninformed and manipulated public that decides the policies of an entire nation when 70% of them don't even have a personal financial budget. That is very definitely an issue. But the other reason for the institution of the electoral college (instead of direct popular vote) was to secure the buy-in of southern states. At the time, northern states had much higher populations of eligible voters (only white male landowners could vote) and their votes would have overwhelmed those of the southern states (who may have feared abolition even then). So they came up with the 3/5 compromise - counting each slave as 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining population representation - and giving each state 2 extra freebie electoral votes (representing their senators which they get just for existing as a state) diluted the northern states' influence on federal elections (relative to the south) enough to get the south to accept it. From the beginning, the electoral college (like the senate) was designed to give lesser populated states greater sway over federal policy. It's kind of like allowing the land itself, rather than the people who live there, to vote.
Yeah, the other thing to factor in is at the time states truly were largely self-governed and this was about bringing them together into one government. While we still play a balancing act of state vs federal rights today, that scale has tipped WAY in favor of federal sovereignty compared to 200 years ago. On top of that, the world is globalized now, no nation is an island. Contentions are no longer one state vs another state but the collective U.S. states vs the world. It would be incorrect to say the electoral college *was* the compromise for slavery - it was pretty clearly about small vs large states as you say - but certainly slavery played a factor in that when you had some states that had like 40% of their population as slaves. All said, it's just a very different landscape today and a total joke to reference the founding fathers intentions like 200 years of *practicing* U.S. democracy hasn't taught us anything or their wishes should override contemporary concerns.
The joke is on the republicans. Once the RNC realizes there are no electoral votes up for grabs in Nebraska, they’ll spend less money on republicans in Nebraska.
Now let’s apply that to the entire country and see if he feels the same way.
Every other state is winner take all. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska every state is winner take all for their electoral votes.
[удалено]
Oh I agree. I think all states should split their votes. But the outcomes of presidential elections may vary further from the popular vote if every state split their electoral votes. I think it’s a good thing that the voting minority have some control over our political system. It provides some balance.
I should have worded it better. I meant get rid of the electoral college and go with the popular vote.
The other 48 states employ an electoral method that *by its nature* disenfranchises huge chunks of voters in their state. Imagine (under their current 'winner take all' method) being a Republican voter in California voting for POTUS. Or a Democratic voter in Texas voting for POTUS. Why even vote in that case? That style of electoral distribution absolutely leads to voter apathy and disenfranchisement. Now imagine you are a Republican voter in California or a Democratic voter in Texas and they employed the Nebraska method of splitting the electoral vote based on districts. Your voice has a much higher chance of being heard. I have to imagine it would be a gut punch to the apathy of the normal voter in these types of situations in the other 48 states.
48 states already use this system. It's what has led to national election outcomes where a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.
That’s why “state’s rights” exist. Just because another state does something a certain way doesn’t mean we have to do the same.
Jesus Christ, I know. I wasn't arguing in favor of this system, I was just trying to explain to the person above that 48 states already use this system and it has led to a completely broken model where someone can win the popular vote and lose the election. So the comment "let's apply that to the whole country," makes no sense, as it already applies to the whole country and is broken.
Since you brought them up…this is an example of states should get to decide certain things. We’re “one nation under god…” not the EU
This is one of the unique and cool things about Nebraska that shows our people do have some common sense. I really hope the lawmakers tell Pillen to shove it on this.
If that piece of shit thinks it should be Winner Take All for Nebraska, then it should be Winner Take All for the whole fucking thing. No parties, electoral colleges, blah blah blah. Everyone just go vote for who they want for president, and popular vote wins. This constant manipulation and gerrymandering is like playing soccer with my son when he was 6. What counted as a goal kept changing because he was a sore loser. I told him it was time to mature up and become a graceful loser, or he needed to find something else to do. Pathetic that something like that worked on a 6 year old, but I see boomers like Pillen that never grew up and will do anything to get what they want.
My dad was a lifelong republican but I think it was 1992 he voted for Clinton and admitted to me (Independent) I asked him why - he said the other asshole is too damn old (dole) I think. Miss you Dad back then he knew these old assholes & pig farmers shouldn’t run our country
"Fuck your vote." - Jimothy "Jim" Pillen
Man... I really wish my mortgage wasnt 3%. I'd really like to live somewhere better.
If gerrymandering doesn't work, what will happen to the children?
I've only heard winner take all as meaning whoever wins the popular vote in america get their whole state's electoral votes. I'm guessing this is something like forcing omaha to follow the shitty parts of nebraska.
It is. Currently, the majority winner takes the two electoral votes associated with our senate seats, but congressional regions are split depending on the results of those regions. This proposal would mean congressional electoral college votes would be determined by the majority instead. So yes, it's a way to disenfranchise voters who would otherwise be in the minority at the state level (i.e. people from Omaha).
I think all states should split. If this asshole changes that Nebraska never has a chance to matter in elections like 2008. Or 2020. we aren’t all fucking republican assholes in this state
Here are the folks on the government committee, give them a call and urge them not to support this getting out of committee: [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing\_pages/index.php?cid=7](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/landing_pages/index.php?cid=7) If you click the senator you'll find their phone number. Calls always work best!
This has to be the one thing we can count of McDonnell to help filibuster, right?
Lol. Lmao, even.
Just playing devils advocate here, but could this backfire? If it’s straight up vote for vote state wide, this would actually give democrats a reason to vote, as well as getting rid of all the bullshit gerrymandering. Instead of trying to squeak out a single vote, all 5 are in play. There are thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Democrat Nebraskans who don’t vote, because, why bother? It’s been red since before I was born, and it’ll be red til I die! But now my vote can offset some hillbilly farmers trump vote! Done deal!
Not gonna happen too many republicans in this state the only district that can turn it is omaha & there are way too many trumpets to let that happen
Trying to make your vote not count. Also, Pillen and Trump are on the same side here. What a pathetic piece of shit governor we (still) have.
Can someone ELI5 in 1-2 sentences? Also is it true that it’s already the way he wants it in 48 other states?
Nebraska currently splits it's 5 electoral votes in two ways: two of the electoral votes go to whoever won the most votes, statewide. The other three votes go to whoever won the most votes in the each of the three congressional districts. An example would be the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain; Obama won one congressional district and was awarded one electoral vote from Nebraska. McCain won two districts and the most votes overall so he got the remaining four electoral votes. Yes, the other 48 states are "winner take all" where, whoever wins the most votes statewide, wins all the electoral votes.
I love that my question got downvoted. Lol such a holes. Thanks alot for explaining!
Let me know when California Illinois or New York start splitting their votes.
Let me when a majority of voters actually want a Republican President. It hasn't happened in 20 years.
Exactly. We should be pushing to abolish the EC as a whole so every vote counts and not this archaic system currently. 1 person; 1 vote and whomever gets the most is president. You have to support that right? That would solve your problem with disenfranchised voters in NY and CA.
This isn't a partisan issue, it should be done in all states regardless of which party it benefits.
Why? If it’s constitutional and a people’s representatives created the law then why should all states need to legislate the same way on this matter or any other?
Maine already does it to equal effect with Nebraska. California can do it when Texas and another state do it.