On January 5, Nebraska Senator John Murante (R-Gretna) again introduced his bill to provide that Nebraska choose all its presidential electors with an at-large vote. This year his proposal is LB 25. He has tried several times in the past to pass this bill, which would end the system in which each U.S. House district elects its own presidential elector.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Maybe he ought to propose that the electors would be chosen by proportional representation as well.
Walt,
The idea of proportional representation has come up before. Like you, I’m an advocate for that idea, but I’m not sure it’s achievable in its purest form. If Nebraska went purely proportional, then it’s likely that their EVs would be 2 for Dems and 3 for Republicans in every presidential election in the foreseeable future. Thus, only one Nebraska EV would be up for grabs in any election. If I recall correctly, this idea was floated in Colorado a few years back and when this observation was made, the voters of Colorado rejected it.
I think a more achievable version of this idea is WTA for a candidate who gets an absolute majority of the votes cast in the state, and proportional allocation otherwise. Under this variation, all of a state’s EVs are up for grabs, and it opens up the number of states that a candidate would visit. For example, Trump barely cleared 50% in Georgia. If pre-election polling showed this, Hillary would have an incentive to visit Georgia because she would have a real shot at some of its EVs. It would also give her an incentive to bolster third party candidates. She would stand to gain if more of Trump’s voters decided to go for Johnson, which would help hold him under 50%. If she saw this, she would be less likely to make the “wasted vote” argument.
Using D’Hondt allocation, a candidate needs 2/3 of the two-way vote to get a 4:1 split. The Republican candidate achieved this in 1952, 1972, 1984, and 2004. There is a distinct possibility that Nebraska will lose a representative in 2030. This would make it easier to get a 3:1 split.
The 2004 proposal in Colorado used an odd algorithm which appears to have been tuned to the 2000 results, so it could be said “If this method had been used in 2000, it would have been a 5:3 split”. It was financed by a wealthy Californian who hoped to cost George W. Bush electoral votes. It also attempted to be retroactive to the 2004 election on which the proposition was also being voted on. Ironically, the Democrats have carried Colorado the last 3 elections. Had it been approved, Trump would have received four additional electors.