Why do Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote? Two exceptions to the electoral system in the US Election 2024

Unlike most states, Maine and Nebraska distribute their electoral college votes in a manner that is more closely tied to the election results, as opposed to the winner-take-all method where whichever candidate ‘passes the post’ first wins all of the votes for that state.

Follow AS’s live coverage of Election Day and the count in swing states

The system used in Maine and Nebraska

In the lead-up to the election, we spoke with Dr. David Schultz, a professor of political science at Hamlin University who studies the US Constitution, the Electoral College, and US elections. While Dr. Schultz makes a clear distinction between Maine and Nebraska and the rest of the states, he also says that method is only ‘somewhat proportional’ as they are based on which candidate earns the greatest number of votes in each of the state’s congressional districts. In these two states, the electoral college vote distribution matches their congressional map, where each district is granted an electoral college vote, and the winner within that district gets the votes. An additional vote is given to the candidate that wins the most votes of the three. So, for example, in 2020. Donald Trump won two of the three congressional districts, and Joe Biden won one. Since Trump won the highest number of districts, he was awarded an additional electoral college vote, meaning he gained three from Nebraska and Maine and Joe Biden just one.

As for why these states have adopted this system of vote distribution: it is more fair. Millions more voters would have a vote that mattered at the presidential level. By allocating the votes in a somewhat proportional manner, the higher concentration of Democrats in Omaha, gives their vote some meaning. That one electoral vote, in a close race like the one we might see on Tuesday, one vote for the Democrats could change the math, which is why the GOP attempted to change the distribution method to a ‘winner takes all’ system used in the 48 other states and Washington DC. These efforts were unsuccessful.

Why more states don’t adopt a proportional distribution

During the interview, Dr. Schultz explained that “efforts to remove the Electoral College have been the most popular form of a constitutional amendment or the most frequent source of a constitutional amendment in American history.” He also cited recent polling on the issue, which shows that 60 to 65 percent of people in the United States want to abolish it, believing that it is not a fair system for electing the president.

However, the professor also detailed how challenging it would be to remove the system entirely. “But to get rid of the Electoral College, we have to amend the Constitution to amend the Constitution,” said Dr. Schultz, adding that such a process would require two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of states to agree. And while a majority of the public disagrees with the system, it is maintained because, at the moment, it favors Republicans. In the 21st century alone, Republicans have been elected to the White House twice while losing the popular vote: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.

The issue that arises when using a winner takes all system is that some voters become marginalized from the political process of electing the president. The majority of people live outside of the seven swing states considered ‘in play’ this election cycle. Millions of people are casting a ballot that will have no impact on the presidential election because they are so outnumbered by the rival party. Third parties are seen as spoilers by the losing side and cannot compete with the funding sitting behind Democratic and Republican candidates.

For example, the state which is home to the greatest number of Republicans is California, but the ‘first passed the post’ system makes all of those votes for president meaningless. A similar situation unfolds in Texas, where millions of Democrats are effectively silenced as a majority of voters in the state tend to favor the Republican candidate.

But when we began discussing the political feasibility and interest of the two leading parties in altering their systems to give minority party voters a greater say, major challenges arise. Put yourself in the shoes of Democrat in the state legislature in California and a Republican in Texas, what incentive to these leaders have to make a change that would essentially dilute the power of their party. “There is no political incentive to do it,” explained Dr. Schultz, adding that it would require leaders to put “country above party” and in political terms make a certain sacrifice for the greater good. Instead, Dr. Schultz believes that political will could materialize if a Democratic candidate were to “win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote.” At that point, Republican leaders in particular, may see the advantage as too clear and thus agree to have the system reformed or thrown out altogether.