Nebraska and Maine’s plan would be better provided each state splits its votes

Nebraska has long counted its electoral votes in presidential elections differently than almost every other state in the Union. Forty-eight states are victorious, meaning the candidate with the most popular votes gets all of that state’s electoral votes. A single-vote victory in California, Texas, Florida, or New York earns all of those states 54, 40, 30, or 28 electoral votes, putting a candidate on track to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.

Nebraska and Maine are different. In the Cornhusker State in 1992, people chose a system they thought was more equitable. It goes like this: The winner in each of the state’s three congressional districts gets one electoral vote. Then the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote gets the other two.

In recent weeks, highly devious Republicans in the Nebraska state legislature, eager to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Donald Trump, have sought to override the will of the people and force change on the last minute, bringing the state back to a winner-take-all situation. all. This would have been disastrous, and if it had been decisive in determining the outcome, it would have tainted the sanctity of the 2024 elections which would never have disappeared.

As the dust settles, the American people need to understand a few things: First, although the Electoral College is mandated in the Constitution, it is not a democratic treasure. Indeed, the way votes are counted dishonors the will of voters in two major ways. First, because the number of votes states have is determined by the number of seats they have in the House plus the number of U.S. senators (always two), giving small states disproportionate power. Second, because of the majority nature of the votes in 96% of the states.

These two outdated characteristics explain why the candidate who won the popular vote lost the presidency in 2000 and 2016, and why such a gap between the will of the American people and the outcome of a free and fair, rules-based election could occur. repeat this year. year.

Unfortunately, the problem cannot be resolved on a state-by-state basis. The number of electoral votes each state receives is determined by the Constitution. As for the winner problem, if New York or Texas did the “right thing” like Nebraska and Maine and started dividing their electoral votes based on the proportion of voters who chose each candidate, that would actually give a less fair system overall – unless and until every other state on the map chooses to do the same. Only when all states proportionally divide their electoral votes will it make political sense, even democratic, for any given state to do so.

Another way to solve the problem would be for more states to sign the National Popular Vote Compact, a promise to send all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the most votes in the entire United States . Seventeen states with 209 electoral votes, including New York, have signed on to date. If a critical mass joins in, the archaic electoral college could become a thing of the past. Provided, of course, that the courts, another not particularly democratic institution, do not turn everything upside down.

___