You go Ernie and Iām glad to see my state senator had his back.
I love that headline - the part that says GOPers Lose Battle makes me feel all tingly
This isnāt a āproportionalā system. Nebraska awards one electoral vote for the winner of each congressional district and two for the statewide winner. There is nothing proportional about it.
Ernie Chambers. What an impressive man. If state legislatures were filled with the likes of him, we would live in a much better country.
Sorry, but āswipeā doesnāt really get it. Forty-eight states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. That may not be the best system, but itās the dominant one, and it has been so since the Constitution went into effect. To say that Nebraska would have āswipedā an electoral vote from the Democrats is overstating the case. And even more so, because the congressional district in question is not reliably blue.
I was fine with this, actually. If weāre going to have the stupid Electoral College system in its present stupid form, then letās have uniform rules. Change Nebraska and change Maine while weāre at it. Thatās probably swinging about 0.2 electoral votes per election to the GOP, but thatās life.
A nationwide winner-take-all plebisciteāor nationwide proportional awarding of electors to candidatesā slates if we had to have electorsāwould be better, but one thing at a time.
Hey, look on the bright side, Republicans. I guarantee you wonāt lose by one electoral vote in 2016.
Proud to know that my Creighton classmate, Senator Ernie Chambers, still stands up for the good.
Thereās only one viable solution here: Pass a law that requires the state to give all its electoral votes to the Republican candidate, regardless of the vote.
Indeed!
And not to diminish his impressive career and work on many important issues, but my favorite part of his wiki entry was:
On September 14, 2007, Chambers filed a lawsuit against God, seeking a permanent injunction ordering God to ācease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threatsā¦of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to representā.
All I can say is this lawsuit is long overdue!
Ernie has been leading the charge on it and as usual has to be thanked. But the change between the select file support on April 4, which enjoyed more than enough votes to get over the filibuster and advance, despite Sen. Chambersā best efforts, and the final read attempt yesterday, which fell one vote short to pass this legislation is not due to Sen. Chambers alone but to Garrett and Krist, who flipped. Garrett was lashing out at those who didnāt support his medical marijuana bill. Garrett told those who voted against his bill on medical marijuana on April 5, the day after Garrett voted for the winner take all bill on Select File, there would be pay back for those who didnāt vote for his priority bill, (Iām looking at you, Sen. McCoy) and that is what happened. Kristās change of heart is probably based on sound reasoning, knowing him.
Regardless, we are always always going to be beating back this attempt. For this year, it means Clinton has a chance at taking the one vote of Omaha, and God help us if the election comes down to one electoral vote. The bottom line, if you donāt want to continue to see this crap from the McCoys of this state, then actively get behind those who will stand with Chambers on these issues. Chambers cannot be a one man army against every bad idea.
For those who think it ought to be winner take all, come to Nebraska. There is a reason why it is proportional and that is, for all intents and purposes, this state is really 3 different regions. I regard the division of electoral votes as representational government at its best, reflected in the Electoral College. You can debate whether thatās the best way to do it, but I at least feel represented as a resident of Omaha, instead of being pulled along by an entirely different electorate out in the Sandhills. Nothing against the Sandhills. Love it. But the thinly populated ranch land out west doesnāt resemble the Omaha which is increasingly urbane, tech company and start up friendly, which boasts 2 Universities, 2 law schools and 2 medical schools, one of which has ambitions to become a regional powerhouse like Mayo Clinic. We do not always share the concerns of Alliance, NE etc., and they in turn do not always share ours.
Thanks for the that Didnāt know anything about him, Impressive indeed
I am even more impressed now, That was delicious
Forty-eight states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. That may not be the best system, but itās the dominant one, and it has been so since the Constitution went into effect.
And yet the Constitution only says, āEach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electorsā. We may be weird, but in this case it benefits - ever so slightly - my personal desires for the direction of the country so Iām OK with it.
I was fine with this, actually. If weāre going to have the stupid Electoral College system in its present stupid form, then letās have uniform rules. Change Nebraska and change Maine while weāre at it. Thatās probably swinging about 0.2 electoral votes per election to the GOP, but thatās life.
In more-reliably-blue states, GOP legislatures are trying to adopt a āproportionalā system instead of winner-take-all, so the āred dotsā in those states can have their EV go a different way from the rest of the state. I hope they fail, for obviously selfish reasons.
Another selfish reason: both Clintons, and before them Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have visited Omaha during campaign seasons. Would never happen again if NE switches to WTA.
Itās way past time to ditch the Electoral College, a system that was set up to ensure slave holding states could continue their abhorrent ways, with the added benefit that land and business owners could control the process if the didnāt like the way the people vote.
I think it is important to realize that were the GOP to implement proportional representation in some states controlled by GOP state legislators, Dems would be screwed big time in the electoral college. There was a big worry about this a year or so back for VA and CA for instanceā¦ Of course, in deep red states like NE, its generally a plus for us. So the concern really is you kinda have to do it everywhere or nowhereā¦this exception while benefiting Dems may actually hurt in the long run
I hope Democrats are paying attention to this. Ohio and Pennsylvania made noises about shifting to this system a few years ago and it would have been devastating, what with all the gerrymandered Republican districts. The main argument that got them to back down, as I understand it: those Congressmen were warned that Democrats would be all over their district to win it for the President - taking them down in the process. Enough apparently feared that outcome that the movement went away.
But I fear it could come back this summer when itās too late to get people to pay attention. Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio are all vulnerable - blue or purple states with Republican legislatures and governors.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
In 1789, in the nationās first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in them, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
In the nationās first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
ā appointment of the stateās presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
ā appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
ā popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
ā popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
ā popular election using congressional districts,
ā popular election using multi-member regional districts,
ā combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
ā appointment of the stateās presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
ā statewide popular election.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Foundersā choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a stateās electoral votes.
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.
"Awarding electoral votes by a proportional [not used by any state] or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.
For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their stateās interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." --FairVote
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 18ā29 year-olds, 67% among 30ā45 year-olds, 65% among 46ā65 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 National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ābattlegroundā states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states with winner-take-all laws that have just been āspectatorsā and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votesā270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)āthereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), 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 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes ā 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.