
For decades, Nebraska has allocated its votes to the Electoral College differently than most other states. Of Nebraska’s five votes, three are individually assigned to the presidential candidate who earns the most votes in each of our state’s three Congressional districts.
Nebraska’s time-honored system rejected two outside attempts in 2024 to switch to winner-take-all. Civic Nebraska led the way to turn back those efforts. But partisan supporters of winner-take-all have raised the issue – again – in 2025.
Here are answers to why a split system is better for Nebraska voters, whether they’re Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or Nonpartisans.
Nebraskans are being forced to debate this issue thanks to outside political pressure in the wake of the 2024 election, coupled with an internal attempt by partisans to consolidate power at the expense of fair representation.
Under the current split system, Nebraskans’ voices matter more because electoral votes are allocated to reflect voters’ preferences in each congressional district. This system ensures that even in a state where one party dominates, as Republicans did in the 2024 election with a 60-40 margin, the voices of the minority are not entirely erased.
Notably, while 40% of Nebraskans voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, only 20% of Nebraska’s Electoral College votes went to her — a stark inequity that would be exacerbated under winner-take-all, effectively silencing the minority entirely.
Since adopting this system in 1991, Nebraska has experienced increased voter engagement and attention from presidential campaigns, particularly in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District. This engagement has fostered civic participation, brought national focus to Nebraska, and demonstrated that even states with strong partisan leanings can contribute meaningfully to the democratic process.
Yet, in nine presidential elections since its adoption, the split system has never tipped the balance of power for the White House. Clearly, this system doesn’t disrupt the national political landscape. Instead, it enhances local democracy and ensures more voters feel their votes count.
Proponents of switching back to winner-take-all are not advocating for fairness or practicality — they are pursuing a raw power grab designed to cement their dominance. Such a move would strip Nebraska voters of a 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 it would send a cynical message: pursuing partisan advantage outweighs the democratic principle of fair representation. Nebraskans deserve better than a system that silences a significant portion of their voices in the name of political gain.
No, we don’t think so. But it certainly works for Nebraska. Our split electoral system is a model that shines for small states with our makeup – demographics, population, and political sensibility. By allocating electoral votes by congressional district and awarding two votes to the statewide winner, Nebraska allows all voices to be 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 democracy 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 should explore as laboratories of democracy.
The split electoral system is far from perfect. It does not fully resolve the inherent anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College. But it’s a significant step closer to the principle of “one person, one vote” than the alternative – lumping all of a state’s voters together under the guise of a single, monolithic “statewide voice.” By allocating electoral votes by district, Nebraska acknowledges and respects the range of political views across its distinct rural and urban regions, allowing each voter’s voice to carry meaningful weight in national elections.
Eliminating this system after decades of success, purely for partisan gain, undermines the agency of hundreds of thousands of Nebraskans. It effectively silences entire regions of the state, stripping residents of their ability to influence the presidential election in a way that reflects their community’s values.
Preserving Nebraska’s split system ensures fairness, representation, and a stronger connection between voters and the democratic process. Dismantling it for short-term partisan advantage damages trust in the system and erodes the core principles of democracy.
No. The longer view of Electoral Vote allocation highlights an irony often overlooked in today’s debates: Nebraska’s own U.S. senators, Republicans Roman Hruska and Carl T. Curtis, were among the most ardent champions of the split-vote system during the most recent push for national adoption in 1969. At the time, Sen. Karl Mundt (R–South Dakota) sponsored a constitutional amendment to implement the district method nationwide. The measure passed the U.S. Senate with the required two-thirds vote but ultimately failed in the House, underscoring the persistent national interest in making presidential elections more representative.
This wasn’t a novel idea. The U.S. Senate had previously approved similar amendments four times between 1813 and 1822, each time failing in the House. These repeated efforts reveal a consistent recognition that the district method better balances local representation with national unity, offering a middle ground between the winner-take-all system and direct popular election. Nebraska’s adoption of this approach in 1991 aligned our state with this historic vision, ensuring that electoral votes reflect the diverse political sensibilities of its regions.
The district method is a practical and principled system rooted in our ideals of fairness and local control. By maintaining it, Nebraska honors a legacy championed by its political leaders, who understood the importance of giving all voters a voice.
Attempts to revert to a winner-take-all system disregard this history and seek to undermine a model that has served as a beacon of more representative elections.
States could gerrymander their congressional districts to manipulate presidential elections under a split electoral system. However, gerrymandering is already a widespread issue in American politics, affecting state legislatures and congressional representation across the country regardless of how electoral votes are allocated.
Each state has its own processes, rules, and safeguards for drawing district boundaries. A split system doesn’t inherently increase the risk of manipulation — it simply reflects the political geography already in place.
The real question here is not about the theoretical dangers of gerrymandering but about what is best for Nebraska. For over 30 years, Nebraska’s split electoral system has operated effectively, allowing voters in different parts of the state to express their political preferences more precisely. It has not only engaged voters in competitive districts but also set an example of how states can approach presidential elections in a way that balances fairness with regional representation.
Rather than abandoning this system over hypothetical concerns, Nebraska should continue refining its processes to ensure fairness in districting and maintain its leadership in creating a more representative democracy.
This overlooks the value of Nebraska’s unique approach to 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, not just following the crowd.
Moreover, Nebraskans have never enjoyed being treated as an afterthought in national discussions. Whether it’s being underestimated in college sports or overshadowed in political debates, our state thrives when it has a seat at the table. The split 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.
Almost certainly. In states dominated by a single political party, many voters feel their participation is futile. It’s common for young conservatives in heavily Democratic states like Illinois or New York, for instance, to regularly express that their votes seem inconsequential due to the political dominance of progressive urban centers like Chicago or New York City. Over time, this apathy compounds – and then, the day after Election Day, we scratch our heads and wonder why U.S. voter turnout wasn’t higher.
When people believe their votes matter, they are more likely to engage in the democratic process. This fosters a sense of responsibility and active citizenship. And that leads to higher voter turnout, more informed electorates, and a government that better reflects the diverse views of its constituents.
Conversely, when the electoral system renders large segments of the population politically irrelevant, it breeds apathy and disengagement, weakening the democratic fabric.
Implementing a winner-take-all system in Nebraska would most likely exacerbate feelings of disenfranchisement among the minority party’s voters, effectively suppressing their voices in presidential elections. This shift would prioritize partisan dominance over fair representation, undermining the principles of democracy.
Maintaining Nebraska’s current split electoral system ensures that all votes carry weight, promoting political engagement and upholding the state’s commitment to fair representation.
Our split system, relative to the rest of the nation, allows one party to “win” without completely silencing the other. This aligns with Nebraska’s spirit of competition, which values fairness over domination.
For decades, Nebraska’s voters have expressed their political preferences more accurately under this system, sending a mix of electoral votes to candidates that reflect both urban and rural areas. This balance highlights Nebraska’s political reality while demonstrating unity with the rest of the nation’s decision for its chief executive. It’s a win-win system that celebrates representation and democracy, except for those who prioritize partisan dominance over fair governance.
Abandoning this long-standing system for winner-take-all is a disservice to Nebraska’s proud tradition of thoughtful electoral innovation. It undermines the state’s role as a model for nuanced representation in the Electoral College.
Not really. In fact, the split system creates a balance that reflects Nebraska’s diverse political landscape more fairly than winner-take-all ever could. It allows all voices to be heard while ensuring no single district dominates the state’s electoral outcome.
Consider: In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris received 40% of the statewide vote but, under the split system, was allocated just 20% of Nebraska’s Electoral College votes. One could argue that Omaha’s influence is not disproportionate but reflects its district’s unique political makeup within the state.
The split system ensures that each congressional district is represented based on its voters’ preferences without granting any single region excessive sway. Omaha’s so-called “blue dot” represents just one electoral vote in a state that overwhelmingly supports Republican candidates. If Nebraska operated under winner-take-all, Harris’ 40% of statewide support would be erased, effectively disenfranchising a significant portion of voters.
The bottom line:
The push to switch to a winner-take-all electoral system is rooted in partisan opportunism, frustration, and a narrow view of political power. Rather than reflecting our state’s range of political sensibilities, it has become part of an ongoing effort to consolidate control by silencing voices that don’t align with the majority party.
This isn’t about fairness or representing Nebraska’s best interests; it’s about maximizing partisan advantage, even at the expense of decades of a system that has worked very well for all Nebraskans.
At its core, support for winner-take-all comes from a fear of losing even one electoral vote to a district like Omaha’s 2nd, which occasionally votes differently from the rest of the state. And it’s certainly not about rural Nebraskans or their voices — it’s about a narrow political strategy that fails to see the long-term value of ensuring every voter, in every district, feels that their voice matters.
Instead of building true unity or strengthening democracy, winner-take-all prioritizes short-term wins over the spirit of Nebraska’s current system. It’s a move driven by pride and resentment, not by what best serves Nebraskans.