You win a state, you get all of its electoral votes — right? That’s how it works in most states, but there are two exceptions. In Maine and Nebraska, candidates can split the electoral votes. Candidates are awarded two for winning the state, and one more for each Congressional District they carry. Barack Obama, for example, won one electoral vote from Nebraska in 2008 by carrying the Omaha-based 2nd District.
Maine and Nebraska rarely get much attention because they are small states and neither is terribly competitive. If a Democrat snags a vote in Nebraska, or a Republican in Maine, it’s a sign that a landslide is on and no one cares much about or needs that extra vote.
Recommended Stories
That could change if Republicans in Pennsylvania get their way. They control the entire state government, and they are seriously discussing adopting the Maine-Nebraska system. That would make re-election much, much more difficult for President Obama.
Imagine, for example, that you’re up late on election night 2012, and you see that the map looks like this:
Seems reasonable enough. But what about Pennsylvania? Let’s say an earthquake has rocked the state, right after the polls closed. Wolf Blitzer declares that there’s a 12-hour delay counting the votes.
Under the current system, you would go to bed expecting four more years of Obama. But if Pennsylvania splits its electoral votes by Congressional District, then there’s a good chance he’s a one-term proposition. The Republican nominee would only need to carry seven Congressional Districts in Pennsylvania to win — something a decent Republican candidate could easily do.
So in the short run, there is obviously a partisan motivation for this proposal. But there are plenty of non-partisan reasons why it’s a good idea, and why it should be adopted everywhere. It would force the parties to organize and work everywhere in every large state, as opposed to simply ginning up massive turnout in their respective strongholds. It would change the way parties and candidates approach presidential elections. It would mean that the votes of Republicans in Illinois and New York and Democrats in Texas or Georgia are still meaningful.
It would slightly resemble a parliamentary system, except that voters can always split their tickets (unlike in England and Spain). Of course, it would also heighten the importance of redistricting to ludicrous levels, perhaps prompting reforms in some states.
But overall, such a system seems very harmful to Democrats — perhaps because of racial gerrymandering inspired by provisions of the Voting Rights Act. If every state had used the Maine-Nebraska system in the 2000 election, then George W. Bush would have won with 299 electoral votes instead of 271, despite losing the popular vote. If they had used it in the 2004 election, he would have won with 317 EVs, instead of 286. If this had been in place in 2008, Obama would have won just 296 electoral votes, instead of the 365 he actually got.
