Every state is different. Nebraska is quite different. It is one of only two states that doesn't use the winner-take-all system in presidential elections. Along with Maine, it allocates its Electoral College votes to reflect the results in each of its congressional districts.
In 2020, Donald Trump lost the Omaha-based congressional district while winning Nebraska's other two. That cost him one electoral vote. In a very close election, that one vote could matter. Hence, Trump and his people have been pressuring Nebraska to adopt "winner-take-all," whereby whatever candidate received the most votes statewide would get all five of Nebraska's electoral votes.
This move is especially bold because in 2016, Trump did win Omaha's district. One supposes he could win it again the old-fashioned way, by getting more people to vote for him than for Joe Biden. As he's proved in terrifying ways, Trump is not a stickler for honoring the will of the people.
Don Bacon, the Republican representing the Omaha district, supports the Trump camp's efforts to change the state's method for assigning electoral votes. "I think it undermines the influence of Nebraska," he told CNN.
The opposite is more likely. Were Nebraska to embrace "winner-take-all," neither candidate would have great incentive to campaign there at all. As for the politics of it, one strains to understand how pushing to deprive his constituents the right to allocate their electoral vote is going to win Bacon love in his purple district.
So far these efforts have failed, even in the GOP-dominated state legislature. Good for them.
But pressure remains. Nebraska's current Republican governor, Jim Pillen, has offered to support a special legislative session to move the state to winner-take-all. "I will sign (winner-take-all) into law the moment the legislature gets it to my desk," he vowed.
However, Nebraska's unique political culture is deservedly a point of pride. There could be blowback on those who help outsiders try to change it.
For example, Nebraska is the only state with a one-chamber legislature. This dates back to 1934, when Nebraskans voted to replace a governing body with both a House and a Senate with a unicameral one. Party affiliations are not listed on the ballot.
This reform was pushed through by George W. Norris, a devout Republican. Norris argued that there was no logic in having a two-house legislature. On the contrary, it cost the taxpayers more money and made politicians less accountable to the people.
"The greatest evil of two-house legislature is its institution of the conference committee," Norris wrote in his autobiography. That's where power brokers could fiddle with passed bills.
"There the 'bosses' and the special interests and the monopolies get in their secret work behind the scenes," Norris wrote. "There the elimination of a sentence or paragraph, or even a word, may change the meaning of the entire law."
Meanwhile, were "reliably Democratic" Maine to adopt a winner-take-all system, that would cancel any Republican advantage in a Nebraska that did likewise. Maine's rural 2nd congressional district favored Trump both in 2016 and 2020.
Adding intrigue, Maine's House recently narrowly voted to have the state join an interstate compact that would assign its Electoral College votes to whatever presidential candidate won the national popular vote. So far 16 states have joined the compact, which would go into effect only if the members have enough electoral votes to determine the outcome.
In 2020, Biden won over seven million more popular votes than Trump did. And in 2016, Hillary Clinton comfortably beat Trump in the popular vote by three million.
It would not seem in Republicans' interests to encourage states to change how they count electoral votes. After all, as Nebraska goes, so could Maine.
Reprinted with permission from Creators.
‘Duck Dynasty’ Star To Return After Anti-Gay Outrage
Los Angeles (AFP) – The star of America’s most popular cable TV reality show will be allowed to return to the program, a statement said, after his suspension for inflammatory remarks about homosexuality and blacks triggered a national furor.
The A&E Network confirmed its popular “Duck Dynasty” show would resume filming next year with star performer Phil Robertson back on board following the storm over his anti-gay comments in a recent interview.
Robertson, 67, the patriarch of the extended family of Louisiana hunters whose lives are chronicled in “Duck Dynasty” was suspended by A&E after suggesting homosexuality is sinful and could lead to bestiality.
In the same interview with GQ magazine, Robertson also minimized the era of racist segregation of blacks in America’s southern states.
Robertson’s comments appalled gay rights activists who demanded A&E consider take action and urged sponsors to cut ties to the program, which is the most-watched nonfiction cable show in U.S. television history.
However the outcry after Robertson’s suspension was matched by an equally vigorous response from fans and socially conservative Republicans, with many claiming Robertson’s rights to free speech were being violated.
After a week-long war of words A&E confirmed that Robertson would return to the show after the star said he “regretted” the way his remarks had been portrayed.
“While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the ‘coarse language’ he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article,” A&E said in a statement. “He also made it clear he would ‘never incite or encourage hate.’ We at A&E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.”
The statement from the broadcaster said “Duck Dynasty” was “not a show about one man’s views.”
“It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family — a family that America has come to love,” he said. “So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.”
A&E said it was planning to launch a national campaign of advertisements preaching unity, tolerance and acceptance.
A&E’s climbdown over Robertson received a chilly response from gay rights activists, however.
“Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists,” a spokesman for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said in a statement.
“If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people — especially its employees and viewers.”
First broadcast in 2012, “Duck Dynasty” centers on Robertson and a family who struck it rich making and selling a cedar wood duck call for hunters called the Duck Commander, yet never abandoned their raw bayou ways.
Many fans say they love the weekly show for its downhome family values: no matter how dysfunctional the Robertsons are, they always come together in the end with love and affection.
Season four premiered in August with 11.8 million viewers, making it the most-watched nonfiction cable show in U.S. television history.
Season five is scheduled to begin on January 15 and the show is also seen on cable and satellite in Europe and Asia.
Besides “Duck Dynasty,” which GQ said earns the Robertson clan a reported $200,000 an episode, the family has published four non-fiction best-sellers this year.
Lucrative merchandising also includes smartphone apps, greeting cards, bobblehead dolls, camouflage outfits and car fresheners.