Civic Nebraska
Civic-Nebraska-Logo-289.png

Civic Nebraska

Our voice. Our vote. Our way.

 

Nebraska’s elections are secure, transparent, and locally relevant — but two new ballot proposals threaten to change that. One would force every ballot in the state to be hand-counted, replacing a proven, accurate system with a slow, error-prone, and extraordinarily expensive one. The other would scrap our state’s popular and unique split-vote Electoral College system while silencing hundreds of thousands of voices. 

 

Civic Nebraska stands firmly against these reckless schemes, and with the majority of Nebraskans who understand that our state’s elections are efficient, fair, and represent everyone.

Unrepresentative: Winner-take-all

Nebraska’s split-vote system, in place since 1991, embodies fairness, representation, and the idea that every community’s voice matters. It bridges the state’s sharp urban-rural divide by ensuring that voters in Omaha, Lincoln, and the rest of Nebraska have a chance to influence the presidential campaign. Winner-take-all would undo that balance, concentrating power in the hands of one partisan majority and making Nebraskans effectively invisible in presidential politics.

WHY THIS EFFORT TO CHANGE OUR SYSTEM?

›› The temptation of partisan electoral dominance. Partisan supporters of switching back to winner-take-all are not advocating for fairness or practicality. They’re pursuing a raw power grab designed to cement their dominance. Such a move would strip Nebraska voters of a much more representative system and reduce the state’s diversity of voices in national elections. Nebraska’s split system models how states like ours can honor their voters’ varied perspectives.

›› Abandoning the current system would send a cynical message that pursuing partisan advantage outweighs the republican principle of fair representation. Nebraskans deserve better than a system that silences a significant portion of their voices in the name of political gain.

›› Yes. Our split electoral system is a model that shines for small states, given our demographics, population, and political sensibilities. By allocating electoral votes by congressional district and awarding two votes to the statewide winner, Nebraska ensures that all voices are heard, even in regions that lean heavily toward one party. This approach respects local dynamics and empowers voters in every district, fostering greater civic engagement and political relevance.

›› The system epitomizes the conservative principle of local/state control by allowing communities to shape electoral processes that reflect their unique needs and values. It avoids the rigidity of a one-size-fits-all model and provides a blueprint for other small states seeking a balance between state-level cohesion and district-level representation. States like Kansas, Nevada, and Idaho could benefit from the increased voter interest and campaign attention that Nebraska has experienced while maintaining the autonomy to decide if such a system is right for them.

›› The split system is a practical and principled way to strengthen engagement at the state level, ensuring that local voices are not drowned out in national elections. It’s a system that respects the individuality of states while promoting fair representation— an innovation that other small states can explore as laboratories of democracy.

›› Because Nebraska has a deep tradition of independent governance and representation. Our state has long taken pride in standing apart with institutions like our nonpartisan and unicameral Legislature — innovations that prioritize independence, practicality, and fairness over reflexive, ideologically driven conformity. Just as Nebraskans value these traditions, our split electoral vote system embodies our commitment to doing what works best for our state, rather than simply following the crowd.

›› Nebraskans have never enjoyed being treated as an afterthought in national discussions. Whether it’s pushing against being underestimated in college sports or refusing to be overshadowed in political debates, our state thrives when it has a seat at the table. The current system ensures Nebraska’s voice is heard in presidential elections, making candidates consider the state’s diverse concerns rather than lumping us into a single, generalized outcome.

›› This system has elevated Nebraska’s role in national politics, drawing attention to our issues and encouraging presidential campaigns to engage with our voters directly. When candidates visit Nebraska or target districts like the 2nd Congressional District, it brings visibility to our state and fosters a sense of agency among Nebraskans. For a state that values local control and civic engagement, abandoning the split system would be a step backward. By maintaining our distinct approach, Nebraska can continue to punch above its weight in the national conversation.

Slow, inefficient: Hand counts

Efforts are underway to place a ballot initiative before Nebraskans in 2026 that would require all ballots in the state to be counted by hand. To voters conditioned to doubt the veracity of our elections, this might sound like a return to simplicity or “common sense.” It’s neither. Hand-counting every ballot is slow, inaccurate, extraordinarily expensive, and rooted in a debunked narrative about election security that has been imported into Nebraska from national conspiracy movements

WHY THIS EFFORT TO CHANGE OUR SYSTEM?

›› To be clear, this isn’t a Nebraska idea. It’s a zombie claim promoted through national disinformation campaigns under the guise of “election integrity.” This is a push by election-denying extremists whose goal is to continue to sow distrust and confusion in our election processes. Nebraska voters deserve better than to be dragged into someone else’s conspiracy crusade.

›› Yes. Mandating hand-counted ballots would dismantle our state’s secure, trusted election systems and replace them with ones that are slow, sloppy, and deeply vulnerable to error. Why? To appease conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked.

›› Our state’s elections are among the most secure and transparent in the nation. Our optical-scan system is tested three times before every election and verified through bipartisan post-election audits. There is absolutely no credible evidence that Nebraska’s system is broken or untrustworthy.

›› Forcing counties to hand-count every ballot would be a disaster. Machines process hundreds of ballots per minute. Humans would take days or weeks, introducing fatigue, mistakes, and confusion. Large counties would need to draft thousands of temporary workers and find dozens of secure locations to meet legal deadlines.

›› It’s also a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Statewide hand-counting would cost millions in staffing and logistics, funds local governments don’t have, and property owners would end up paying. 

›› Because they are already among the best, most efficient, and most secure in the nation. Nebraska’s elections are secure and verifiable — tested three times, audited by hand afterward, and conducted with bipartisan oversight.

›› Hand counting every ballot would make elections slower, more error-prone, and vastly more expensive.

›› This initiative is not reform; it’s regression, driven by conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly disproven.

›› Machines don’t cheat. They read ovals accurately, flag unreadable ballots, and keep an auditable record.

›› Nebraskans deserve elections that are accurate, affordable, and trustworthy, not a chaotic system built on weaponized misinformation.

Don't allow extremists to manipulate Nebraska's elections.
Decline to sign election-meddling petitions.

Civic Nebraska headlines