A measure aimed at reinstating a winner-take-all system for Nebraska’s five presidential electoral votes failed to advance from the first round of debate April 8.

Currently, the winner of Nebraska’s statewide popular vote receives two Electoral College votes. And, since 1992, the state’s three congressional districts also award one electoral vote each based on the popular vote winner in each district.

Nebraska has split its electoral votes three times — in 2008, 2020 and 2024. Maine is the only other state to use this system. In the other states, the winner of the popular vote receives all the electoral votes.

LB 3, introduced by Central City Sen. Loren Lippincott on behalf of Gov. Jim Pillen, would reinstate a winner-take-all system and award all five electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote.

Calling the current split-vote system a “failed experiment,” Lippincott said a winner-take-all allocation of Nebraska’s electoral votes would make the state more influential in presidential races.

“This is not about party politics,” Lippincott said. “It is about creating a system that ensures that every Nebraskan’s vote counts equally, promotes unified representation and strengthens our state’s voice in the national conversation.”

Hastings Sen. Dan Lonowski supported the proposal. He said the decisive vote that the 2nd Congressional District could deliver in a closely contested presidential election would be out of proportion to the nearly even party split that characterizes the district.

“Why would we want to be different from 48 other states and maybe incongruous?” Lonowski said. “We need to get on the same sheet of music.”

Sen. Bob Andersen of Omaha suggested that a return to winner-take-all could be a way to “stop the influx of out-of-state funds” that flow into CD2 during the presidential election season, which he said totaled more than $5.5 million and are a “detrimental side effect” of the current system.

Also speaking in support of LB 3, Sen. Jared Storm of David City said the 1991 bill that created the state’s current split electoral system passed with the minimum number of votes and has faced consistent attempts at repeal in the years since.

If the split electoral system was superior to winner-take-all as its proponents suggest, he said, more than two states would have implemented it.

“We are the United States of America, not the united congressional districts of America,” Storm said.

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad opposed the measure and offered a motion to indefinitely postpone LB 3. The possibility of gaining an electoral vote in CD2 gives Nebraska a relevance in national elections that it otherwise would lack, she said, and reflects the reality that not all Nebraskans share the same political priorities.

“We are a diverse state … our political culture is different in different parts of the state,” Conrad said.

Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha also opposed the measure. She said allocating electoral votes by district ensures an outcome that is “closest to the people.” She suggested that the push to return the state to winner-take-all is a partisan attempt at “consolidation of power.”

“This bill is about locking up all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes for the Republican Party because the current system doesn’t always give them what they want,” Hunt said.

Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston said all states would follow Nebraska’s lead in allocating electoral votes “in an ideal world.” Speaking in opposition to LB 3, Riepe said the potential for a split electoral vote brings attention and resources to the Omaha area that would not happen otherwise.

“Those who live in safe states or safe districts may not understand what it means to be courted,” Riepe said. “As the saying goes, you don’t know what you’ve got until you lose it.”

Fremont Sen. Dave Wordekemper said he tried to find a way to support LB 3, but could not. He said 75% of constituents in his legislative district, which includes residents of both CD1 and CD2, told him that they support keeping the current electoral system.

“Why does this matter so deeply?” Wordekemper said. “Because Nebraska’s split electoral system isn’t just a procedural quirk. It’s part of our identity, just like the Unicameral.”

After four hours of debate, Lippincott offered a motion to invoke cloture, which ceases debate and forces a vote on the bill. The motion failed on a vote of 31-18. Thirty-three votes were needed.

A failed cloture motion ends debate on a measure for the day, and because of the crowded legislative schedule, LB 3 is unlikely to be scheduled for further debate this session.

© 2025 The North Platte Bulletin. All rights reserved!