Partisan battle flares over bill to return Nebraska's electoral votes to winner-take-all system
Source: Omaha World Herald
By Paul Hamme
LINCOLN The political shots were flying Monday as a partisan debate flared over whether Nebraska should return to a winner-take-all presidential election.
Democrats and the lone independent in the officially nonpartisan State Legislature accused their Republican colleagues of being stooges for their state party, which threatened in 2011 to remove financial backing for any GOP senators who didnt back a return to a winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes.
If they dont toe the line and bend the knee, theyre in big trouble, said State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, the Legislatures only registered nonpartisan lawmaker.
Republicans denied that, saying the issue was about the state adopting the same electoral system as 48 other states and deciding the best policy.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/partisan-battle-flares-over-bill-to-return-nebraska-s-electoral/article_258817e0-bb8b-11e4-81a3-13ce3329b15c.html
Hosts the time stamp is wrong on this. OWH does it all the time. This story is from Today's session.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)Once the electoral power of the big blue states is divided, I fear Democrats will never win a national election. How many electoral votes do Dems get from Nebraska?
Better yet, get rid of the electoral college.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,427 posts)The first to go to a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.
The district that included Omaha went for Obama. In 2010 that district was gerrymandered so that the entire state is now Republicon red.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)so go to winner take all and when Nebraska turns blue, we get them. Of course, the day that happens we'll have enough sanity to do away with the electoral college altogether.
mvymvy
(309 posts)To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill 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 or states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states 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 votesthat 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.
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 1829 year-olds, 67% among 3045 year-olds, 65% among 4665 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.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote.com