According to this newspaper story of November 8, Barack Obama has carried the 2nd U.S. House district in Nebraska, so he gets one electoral vote from Nebraska. The margin was 1,260 votes, although that will change, since ballots are still being counted. The article doesn’t give the minor party and independent presidential vote in the district, nor does the Secretary of State’s web page.
The newspaper story’s portrayal of states that split their electoral votes in the past is misleading. The story seems to say only a few states once elected presidential electors by district. Actually, long ago, more states elected electors by district than statewide. For example, in 1796, six states elected electors by district, but only three states elected them statewide, and in seven states the legislature chose them.
interestingly enough, as a resident of maine, I noted that only because we split our electoral votes did anyone care about us at all this year.
the McCain camp showed a lot of attention to rural maine in an attempt to pry out a vote or two. If that were not possible, both candidate would have ignored us utterly.. as they usually do anyway.
the great thing is that the major arguement against splitting our vote is that it reduces our influence in the nation. Well, you can ask Rhode Island how having the minimum number of votes and not splitting them helps them… I can say that splitting is definitely the way to go in today’s tight margin politics.
I hope other states follow suit.. at least until the antiquated indirect electoral college is finally, rightfully abolished.
In 1796: KY, MD, MA, NC, VA and ??? by district.
And even the 5 States in 1796 was the high water mark for district election of electors.
It certainly is accurate to note that Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina used similar systems in the early 1800s, though calling it a flirtation is not, since these States, along with Tennessee, used district elections on a consistent basis.
Michigan’s one-time use of congressional districts in 1892 could certainly be characterized as a flirtation, as it was used for one election after the Democrats gained control of the legislature, and switched back when the Republicans re-gained control. Michigan’s use of districts in 1892 was the first use of district elections since Maryland last used districts in 1832, and until Maine (re)started using districts in 1972.
The system used by Maine and Nebraska is unlike that used by most States in the first 12 presidential elections, in that two electors are chosen Statewide. Much more common early on was the election of presidential electors from special purpose electoral districts, either single member, or sometimes multi-member.
This is consistent with the view of each elector acting as an independent agent. An omission from the newspaper article about Nebraska’s 2nd district was who the 2nd district’s elector-elect is.
Also most states were not winner-take-all until the 20th century. Even when electors were chosen on a statewide basis, electors ran as individual members of a slate, and a voter was free not to support all those allied with a particular party or presidential candidate.
Richard,
For the last two days the Secretary of State’s site had the Presidential results by CD and the other election results on their site. Now they are gone.
Here are the figures for NE-02 I remember seeing as shown at:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/omaha.html#comment-2826727837656866911
John McCain Republican 126,303
Barack Obama Democrat 125,734
Ralph Nader By Petition 1,502
Chuck Baldwin Nebraska 560
Bob Barr Libertarian 533
Cynthia McKinney Green 292
The figures released on election night were:
Barack Obama Democrat 114,212
John McCain Republican 113,853
Ralph Nader By Petition 1,299
Bob Barr Libertarian 837
Chuck Baldwin Nebraska 495
Cynthia McKinney Green 265
Minnesota Secretary of State tends to list statewide, US Senate and presidential results by Congressional, even legislative and county districts.
All of which is ease to access, most of the time online and for free. Although, we still are not entirely sure who our US Senator will be.
In 1796, the 6th state that used districts was Tennessee, which divided itself into 3 presidential electoral districts. It couldn’t use US House districts since it only had one US House member.
There were also 6 states that used districts of one kind or another, in 1820. Those 6 states were Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Tennessee.
UNEQUAL popular votes per Electoral College vote since whenever — statewide or in gerrymander sub-districts.
ALL Prezs since 1832 have been de facto elected by about 30 percent of the popular votes — somewhat over half the votes (a plurality) in just enough States/D.C. having a bare majority of the total Electoral College votes.
Is such about 30 percent indirect MINORITY RULE SOOOOO difficult to understand ???????
Democracy NOW.
Approval Voting in NONPARTISAN elections for ALL elected executive officers and ALL judges — including the Supremes.
How come ALL States manage to survive by having mostly majority winners for State governors and other statewide officers ???
What exactly is the EVIL fixation with the math of the EVIL Electoral College in the 3rd grade brains of mathematical MORONS ???
Is it a legitimate goal for third parties to make a goal of getting one of these electoral college votes next time around? Is it feasible? Is it worthwhile? What would it accomplish? Would the elector really be bound to the candidate who won?