Two Nebraska lawmakers from opposing parties found a point of agreement on Nebraska’s unique way of awarding Electoral College votes: It makes sense, in theory.
But that was largely where the agreement ended between state Sens. Danielle Conrad and Julie Slama during a discussion at Wednesday’s State of Our Union in Lincoln. The event, organized by The Atlantic magazine in partnership with the Flatwater Free Press, featured a series of discussions on topics of regional and national importance.
The two lawmakers were on hand to discuss a question that has injected Nebraska into the national political discussion in recent months.
Nebraska and Maine are the only two states in the nation that split electoral votes for president – the rest use a “winner-take-all” system that awards all votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which covers most of the Omaha area, has only departed from the rest of the reliably Republican state twice — in 2008 for Barack Obama and 2020 for Joe Biden.
While Omaha’s lone vote has done little to sway past elections, the battle for it has intensified this year in what is shaping up to be a close presidential race. Spending has increased and competing blue and red dot signs have popped up across the city.
Former President Donald Trump pushed for state lawmakers to change Nebraska to winner-take-all in a special session, but supporters did not have enough lawmakers on board to change the system.
Slama, a Republican from Dunbar who has long advocated for switching to winner-take-all, said she has changed her view on Nebraska’s electoral system – at least in theory. If every other state switched to Nebraska’s system, Slama said she would support it.
“If we want to go nationwide and split our electoral college votes, I agree with Sen. Conrad. I think that’s a great way to go,” she said. “I think if you zoom out from the politics, that seems fair, if everybody’s doing it that way, but this is a situation where it’s purely political.”
Instead, Democrats have safeguarded the practice to retain a sliver of relevance in Nebraska at a time when they’ve struggled, Slama said.
“If the Democrats could win a statewide race to save their lives, we wouldn’t be having this debate,” she said. “We wouldn’t be having a discussion about splitting electoral votes. You want a participation medal for winning Omaha.”
But Conrad, a Democrat from Lincoln who supports the state’s current system, said both Republicans and Democrats back the state’s current system, which is why it has survived repeated attempts to do away with it since it was first enacted in 1992.
Winner-take-all, Conrad noted, is what contributes to those situations where the Electoral College vote diverges from the national popular vote, as most recently happened in 2016 and 2000.
“Every time we see a candidate who wins the national popular vote lose the electoral vote, it really rubs Americans the wrong way,” Conrad said. “It really rubs Nebraskans the wrong way.”
Nebraska’s current system, and the fight for Omaha’s electoral vote, also makes the state relevant during presidential campaign season, Conrad said.
“People want to encourage voter engagement, they want to encourage investment,” she said. “They want to bring presidential candidates to their state to compete for their vote and not just be written off as a red state or a blue state.”
Slama, who decided not to seek reelection and will leave the Legislature after this year, previously helped lead the push to put a successful voter ID ballot measure before Nebraska voters. She didn’t say whether she would help spearhead a ballot measure to put winner-take-all before voters if the Legislature fails to enact it. But she believes Nebraskans should have a choice.
“I wholeheartedly support that discussion being had, especially when we’re outside of an election,” Slama said, “because if you take off the pressure of a national vote then we can really get together as Nebraskans.”