Sour Grapes In Nebraska

by: Daniel De Groot

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 18:00

Then one election, it actually does.  Now you're the State's dominant party, the Republican party.  What do you do?  

Why, end the system and go back to a winner-take-all, of course.

Nebraska GOP chairman Mark Quandahl said the Republican Party wants to "put Nebraska in line with the 48 other states in the union that are allocating their electoral votes the correct way."

He said they'll urge a state senator to introduce a bill to repeal the unusual arrangement next year, but he objects to suggestions his party is being a bad sport.

"Pshaw. That isn't true," Quandahl said.

Strong rebuttal there, Mr Quandahl.  

More:

David Kramer with the Republican Party says it has nothing to do with the increased number of registered democrats. "I think it's a question of fairness." Kramer says the system only works for the democrats. Kramer says, "If it's good for us here than it ought to be good for us in California, in New York and those places where democrats would fight tooth and nail to make sure this kind of proposal never ever got passed." 80-year-old Helen Houston, who lives next door to De Mott, agrees.

Registered republican, Helen Houston says, "I think it has sparked a lot of energy but I still feel we need to be the same as the rest of the country." Republicans have tried to change the system in the past in 19-95 and 97, both times former Democratic Governor Ben Nelson vetoed it.

The chances the voter system will change next year depend on Nebraska's legislature. With new senators coming in, it depends which party gets the majority of the seats.

More:

The Obama campaign mounted an unprecedented field operation in Omaha, registering new voters and prompting a record outpouring of early voters.

Last one:

Obama ignored Nebraska's history this year, sending 16 paid staffers into the 2nd District and opening three offices in Omaha.

It seems perfectly clear the law accomplished its intended purpose.  A major party candidate invested time and resources into your state, and managed to swipe an electoral college vote, making it even more likely both parties would invest in Nebraska in 2012.

I guess in the NE GOP's defence, they have been trying to get rid of this law for some time.  Though the current Republican governor has been in office since 2005, and the "non-partisan" (ha!) State unicameral state legislature sat at 31R-15D-3I before the election, so I'm not sure what was stopping them.  

Speaking of the state leg, it appears that the Democrats have gained a couple, bringing them to 17 seats with 2 still undecided.  According to the legislative rules, 1/3 of the legislature can block cloture on bills (the unicameral legislature was originally the Senate so it kept senate-like rules).  A caveat though from that New Nebraska Network link:

On many state and local issues, the "D" or "R" next to a legislators' name does not and should not have a damn thing to do with how they vote and represent their constituents' best interests.  Recognizing that, 17 Democratic votes wouldn't mean a whole lot because there is bound to be too wide a range of interests within such a group - especially on issues that divide urban and rural Nebraska.

So I gather there are a few mini-Nelsons within the NE leg Dems, who will regularly vote with the GOP.  

Anyway, looks like Nebraska will return to national electoral irrelevance in time to prevent 2012's Republican candidate from having to invest any effort into the state.  

At a National Level, this is an opening to talk about real electoral college reform via the National Popular Vote project.  If Republicans want to whine that California wasn't willing to go first in surrendering a massive electoral Democratic advantage, then they should get on board.  Nebraska doesn't even have a legislator willing to introduce a PV bill.  It polls really well even in red states and leaves Republicans in the uncomfortable position of fighting against democracy.  Seems like a winner, NE-Dems.