Maine & Nebraska Split Electoral Votes

June 4th, 2008 · 11 Comments · · URI

You now have the ability to split the electoral votes of Maine & Nebraska on the 270toWin interactive map.

Background: Although it is possible for an Elector to cast his or her vote for someone other than for the popular vote winner in their state, this is quite rare in modern times. As a result, Electoral Votes for a state tend to be “all or nothing”.

Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.

Mathematically, the popular vote winner of a state must win at least one of the districts. That is why you cannot assign all the district Electoral Votes to the losing party in the state. Note that since these rules were adapted, neither state has ever split their Electoral Votes. in 2008, Maine looks safely Democratic, Nebraska solidly Republican, but it isn’t out of the question that Obama could pick off the 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and its suburbs), gaining a Democratic Electoral Vote in Nebraska for the first time since 1964.

Tags: New for 2008

11 responses so far ↓

1 Judith // Oct 9, 2008 at 11:43 pm

And so, we are being bombarded with ugly Republican ads that are beyond negative, pushing distortions and lies about Obama, all in hopes of winning one of the electoral votes.
2 John // Oct 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Why is it ugly Republican ads that are beyond negative when they are Republican, but when the are Democratic they are all true? Wake up!
3 dylan // Oct 22, 2008 at 10:51 am

Judith said nothing about the ads being ugly BECAUSE they’re republican, They are both ugly AND republican. She is just wishing that the GOP would give up on her state so she can return to her ads for swiffer and lite beer.

The republican mantra of WAKE UP! isn’t constructive. If you want to wake a person up, Inspire them. Like Obama does.
4 Jeff Spence // Oct 23, 2008 at 5:19 am

I love this idea! I didn’t realize that anyone did this, but I’ve suggested this since the 2000 controversy!

Think about it… Republicans in CA and Dems in TX must be very frustrated, as they rarely have their votes “counted”, since large cities can overwhelm the state’s average.

California gets 55 EC votes… 53 from each congressional district, and 2 for the senators. So, each congressional district has their own presidential election, majority wins 1 EC vote. For the senators, since they are state-wide, the majority in the state would get 2 EC votes.

It’s the same concept as the EC we have now, but more people get their vote “counted”.
5 jdp // Oct 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Every four years or so, the question comes up again of getting rid of the electoral college and going to a national at-large election. Then some suggest that the current system would be more fair if all the states allocated their electoral votes as Maine and Nebraska do. Whether that would be better is an endless debate; but I think it would be cool if this site, in its interactive maps, had an option to select this EV allocation scheme. It might be tough to do for the current election season, if the poll data aren’t that fine grained; but it should be possible to show the “what if” map for recent past elections. What do you think? Would that be easy to add?
Thanks,
jdp
6 John // Oct 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm

So, this is to day that the Democrats are not running any ads in her state?Inspire them like Obama? You may as well say inspire them like Chavez or Stalin. As Thomas Jefferson said, “A government large enough to give you everything you want can also take everything that you have.” My wife and I work too hard to get ahead to have someone come and take more in taxes. This country was founded on the principle that if you work hard, you will get ahead, not on the principle that if you work hard you can help some lazy person get ahead. I have mowed yards, washed dishes, delivered pizzas and newspapers all as second and third jobs to be able to get where I am. If more people had the same work ethic they would not have to worry about living off my extra taxes. I choose to donate to the causes I deem to be worthy, that is a choice that I should be able to make for myself, not have Obama do it for me.
7 Lance // Oct 31, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Carrying this idea further is a bad idea. Congressional districts are redrawn by politicians every 10 years, so the party in power uses computer software to carve gerrymandered districts to maximize their representation and marginalize their opposition. The best change for America would simply be to use the popular vote tally. That way we’d be a true democracy and candidates would campaign to everyone instead of just a few in toss-up states. One wonders if all the present economic problems and America’s loss in international stature could have been avoided if the popular vote was in use during the 2000 election. It’s hard to imagine Gore could have done worse than Bush’s record of dismal failure that has brought us from a budget surplus to the brink of a “second great depression” and trillions of dollars in debt.
8 Jeremy // Nov 2, 2008 at 1:49 am

Hey John,
The idea of a social safety net isn’t to help lazy people. It is so that good, hard working people that went to college and have played by the rules don’t face situations like my wife and I have. We both have degrees and good jobs. I have called in sick once in 3 years. We’re not lazy. My wife has a chronic condition and is on $1500/month medication. We aren’t sure if our $8000/year insurance will cover it next year. If not we will be ruined. And, no, we can’t shop around. No individual insurance will even cover her. But I guess if we go bankrupt because of the current system we are just lazy.
9 SP // Nov 4, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
10 Clarence // Nov 5, 2008 at 2:28 am

John, you write in ignorance. The poor do not pay taxes so they will not get their taxes reduced. The wealthy will not get as many tax breaks as they usually do. Unless you are an extremely wealthy individual why are you complaining? If you are wealthy, why are you complaining? It is the middle class that will benefit.
11 Beez // Nov 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Clarence, you write in ignorance. “The poor do not pay taxes so they will not get their taxes reduced.” HAH! Tell that to the number of people who pay no taxes, but still get a check from the IRS because of the various “tax credits”.