Obama Wins Nebraska Electoral Vote

OMAHA, Neb. — President-elect Barack Obama won one of Nebraska's electoral votes, the first time in history that the state has split its votes and the first time in 44 years that it had given a vote to a Democrat.

After remaining ballots were counted Friday, Obama had a 3,325-vote lead over Republican John McCain in unofficial results for the 2nd Congressional District. Nebraska and Maine are the two states that divide their electoral votes by congressional districts.

Obama, who won the White House last week, has 365 electoral votes to McCain's 162. Missouri, with 11 electoral votes, is still too close to call. Election officials in that state have until Tuesday to finish counting.

The last Democrat to win Nebraska was Lyndon B. Johnson, who carried the state in 1964.

A 1991 state law allows Nebraska to divide its five electoral votes. Two go to the statewide winner and one is awarded from each of the state's three congressional districts.

McCain comfortably won the electoral votes tied to the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts. He also won the statewide race with about 57 percent of the vote in preliminary returns.

Obama aggressively sought the one electoral vote. He opened three campaign offices in the district and had 16 paid staff during the campaign.

As of Friday's unofficial results for the district, Obama has a total of 138,892 votes and McCain 135,567 votes. The Obama lead of 3,325 is far higher than the recount threshold of about 1,389, or 1 percent of Obama's total.

Comments

[ILibertine]

It strikes me as strange that just across the river from Iowa, that was so resolutely in Obama's corner, Nebraska, like an insular bastion of hayseeds, remains so head-in-the-sand. Fortunately, given the unique manner of distributing electoral votes, it is nice to have at least 20% representing a difference in opinion, and perspective.

[wendynyc]

Now let's get it done - MISSOURI and Georgia!!

[LJA]

I keep hearing all news media saying that Obama won by 52% and this keeps being repeated. It's about time to mention the correct percentage. It is 53%. Spread it around please!

[kewps]

Being from Omaha, I am so proud we made this happen in our district!

[mvy]

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. 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 National Popular Vote 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 is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See www.NationalPopularVote.com

[mvy]

Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if the a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

[mvy]

What the U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

The "normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures.

[bobbysgurl]

Thank you, Omaha and Douglas County.

[woolie123]

Don't forget Sarpy County.

[Higbyguy]

The winner-take all process of assigning electoral votes is patently undemocratic and unflective of the true desires of the American people. Maine and Nebraska have come to their senses and installed a system that takes an important step toward making our presidential elections more democratic. Other states should consider doing the same.

If all electoral votes in 2000 had been awarded in such a fashion, Gore would have won the White House because rural, Conservati­ve-leaning states would not have dismissed the will of their more Progressive urban residents (see: Omaha). Even red states have Progressives and they often cluster together in urban areas of the state. Even rural districts with strong college towns would have a shot at an electoral vote.

In any event, congrats to Maine and Nebraska for doing the right thing. And congrats to Omahans for joining this nation consensus for change.

[Cookie100]

You Nebraskans did a wonderful job, Congratulations! We might have needed that vote!

[Zenith1959]

It is time to get rid of the electoral college.

[exotic]

way to go Nebraska!! Now, let's get Nebraska senator Hagel for sec of state!!!

[kewps]

I like Chuck, I think he would make an excellent defense sec.

[DrGandalf]

More states need to vote their presiential electors as Maine and Nebraska do today. Each senatorial district (state as a whole) and every house district should select its own presidential elector. In this way, we will see that the popular vote will not be so skewed away from the Electorial College results. States like North Carolina and Missouri would not send all of their electors from one party, but would have to split them according to the desires of the voters.

[R Flan]

Congratulations Omaha! You are officially no longer a part of Dumbfuckistan.

[Overberg3959AC]

only Douglas and Sarpy county........

[kewps]

Hey-there are a handful of us liberals here you know-lol!

[SeanGardner]

I sent over 1000 e-mails out for Obama to residents and businesses in Omaha during September. I guess it worked.

[Zhonni]

You've done well Sean.

I have told you before, in a less coherent fashion that you got me into blogging without knowing it. I strived to be like you, with facts to back up what i am saying.

I have gone rogue since then(laugh).