Bringing Nebraska in line

The Electoral College is no longer necessary for the Election process, as we no longer need to have people carry our vote to Washington, to be counted. Computer technology now allows the vote to be won by simply counting the personal votes of the people. The person with the most votes, wins.

Daylight savings does not save daylight, but sure does mess with the internal clock, requiring days to adjust to the shift, twice a year. I often believe the shift is worse than Jet-Lag,

A survey of 800 Nebraska voters conducted on December 22-23, 2008 showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska's electoral votes,

* 60% favored a national popular vote;

* 28% favored Nebraska's current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and

* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

When presented with the basic question of a national popular vote, support for a national popular vote was, by political affiliation, 79% among Democrats, 70% among Republicans, and 75% among Others.

By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 77% in the First congressional district, 68% in the Second district; and 77% in the Third District. As you know, the Second district voted for Obama in November 2008, and Obama received one electoral vote by virtue of carrying the Second district.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 64% among 18-29 year olds, 72% among 30-45 year olds, 73% among 46-65 year olds, and 79% for those older than 65.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 82% among women and 66% among men.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#NE_2008DEC

You two are both wrong and you really need to rethink your comment. without the electoral collage the large population centers will be electing our next president. The founders definitely had this one right. Just look at the county by county vote or square milage voting map. Nebraska will have no say who the next president is.

If Nebraska changes to statewide winner-take-all awarding of electoral votes, the whole state will be ignored.

Serious candidates for office solicit every vote that matters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

This fact is demonstrated by the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska (the Omaha area). Even though this district contains less than 1/5% of the country's 538 electoral votes, the Obama campaign in 2008 operated three separate campaign offices staffed by 16 people there. The reason was that Nebraska is one of two states that awards electoral votes by congressional district. Both political parties spent a considerable amount of money and effort trying to win the 2nd district. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, visited the district during the post-convention general election campaign. Both parties paid attention to the 2nd district because it was a closely divided battleground district where one electoral vote was at stake. The outcome was that Barack Obama carried the 2nd district by 3,378 votes and won one electoral vote in Nebraska.

One Nebraska state senator whose district lies partially in the 2nd congressional district reported a heavy concentration of lawn signs, mailers, precinct walking, telephone calls to voters, and other campaign activity related to the presidential race in the portion of his state senate district that was inside the 2nd congressional district, but no such activity in the remainder of his state senate district. Indeed, the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts, because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) two-thirds of the state were irrelevant.

Similarly, in Maine (which also awards electoral votes by congressional district), the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).

When and where votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When and where votes don't matter, they ignore those areas.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of 'flyover' states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to 'battleground' states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidenti­al candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographi­c group surveyed in recent polls.

In a 2008 survey, 70% of California residents and likely voters supported this change. Democrats (76%) and independents (74%) were more likely to support a change to direct popular vote than Republicans, but 61 percent of Republicans also supported this change. Among likely voters, support for this change was 6 points higher than in October 2004 (64%).

The bill has passed 31 state legislativ­e chambers, in 21 states, including AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC,OR, CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPo­pularVote.com

Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support It would no longer matter who won a state.

Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states' total 166 electoral votes.

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California's population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates' attention, much less control the outcome.. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004. A "big city" only campaign would not win.

For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

National canidates wont even stop in Nebraska!