Nebraska's unique electoral system is in limbo as Trump and Biden face off over a proposed change to the state's winner-take-all system.
The push for this change began when Trump endorsed the proposal, raising speculation that Republicans could regroup and pass it despite initial claims from its sponsor that they do not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.
Lawmakers in Nebraska are facing a late push to change the way the state awards electoral votes after former President Donald Trump and his allies came out in support of a languishing proposal that could boost his chances of prevailing nationally in the electoral college. The proposed change comes as Nebraska is one of only two states that divides its electoral votes among statewide and congressional district winners, which allowed President Joe Biden to pick off an electoral vote in the red state by carrying a swing district in the Omaha area.
The push for this change began when Trump endorsed a proposal to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system. This endorsement has raised speculation that Republicans could regroup and pass the bill despite initial claims from its sponsor that they do not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.
The proposed change would significantly impact Biden's reelection path if successful, as it would make it more difficult for him to win electoral college votes in Nebraska under a scenario where Trump wins Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada while losing the state. However, Democrats are preparing for this possibility by readying procedural bars and a possible filibuster.
Despite these efforts from both sides of the political spectrum, it is important to note that ultimately, the Nebraska legislature does not legislate in response to tweets or external pressure. The state's unique electoral system has been in place since 1991 and allows for two votes to go to the candidate with the most votes statewide while allocating three votes based on winners of individual congressional districts.
The proposed change would bring Nebraska into line with 48 other states, better reflecting the founders' intent and ensuring that the state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections. However, it is crucial to approach this issue objectively without bias or preconceived notions about its potential impact on future election outcomes.
Nebraska is one of only two states that divides its electoral votes among statewide and congressional district winners.
Joe Biden picked off an electoral vote in the red state by carrying a swing district in the Omaha area.
Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Trump on Tuesday endorsed a proposal to return the state to a winner-take-all system, possibly upending the final days of the state's legislative session.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh (D), who represents Omaha, said Democrats are “on the lookout” and preparing for a bill to be attached to “any particular vehicle,” while readying to put up “procedural bars” and a possible filibuster.
The sponsor of the proposal has said he does not have the votes to overcome a filibuster, but Trump's 11th-hour intervention has raised speculation that Republicans could regroup.
Ultimately, the Nebraska legislature does not legislate in response to tweets from anyone.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the situation as if Trump and his allies are pushing for a change to the electoral vote system when in fact they have been advocating for this change since at least 2019. Secondly, it portrays Pillen's endorsement of the proposal as a sudden shift when in reality he has been supportive from the start. Thirdly, it presents Kirk's tweet as if it was responsible for Trump's decision to push hard for this change when in fact there were significant obstacles that had already been identified weeks ago. Finally, it portrays McDonnell's switch as a boost to GOP hopes for the proposal when in reality he has stated that he will continue opposing any proposed changes to the electoral-vote system.
The article presents Trump and his allies as pushing for a change to the electoral vote system, but this is not accurate. In fact, they have been advocating for this change since at least 2019.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: to change the electoral vote system or not to change it. However, this is not true; other options exist such as maintaining the current system or implementing a different method altogether.
The article states that Nebraska has only two ways of awarding electoral votes: either by dividing them among statewide and congressional district winners or returning to a winner-take-all system. This presents a false dilemma as there are other options available.
The power of the far-right commentator Charlie Kirk was illustrated when his tweet prompted the governor of Nebraska to support a bill to change the state's system for presidential elections in order to deny Democrats a single electoral vote that could decide the presidency later this year.
Despite being one of the most Republican states thanks to this system, Omaha's electoral vote leans blue and Biden is likely to win it again this year.
Nebraska has five electoral college votes. Since 1991, it has split them.
Accuracy
Nebraskans should call their legislators and their governor to demand their state stop pointlessly giving strength to their political enemies, Kirk wrote.
California would never do this. New York would never do this. And as long as that's the case, neither should we. This is completely fixable.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that Charlie Kirk's tweet prompted Governor Jim Pillen to support a bill to change Nebraska's electoral system when there was no evidence of this. Secondly, it implies that Joe Biden could win the presidency if he won Nebraska's second district again and all five votes went to him, which is not true as it would only produce a 269-269 tie. Thirdly, the article presents Kirk's statement about California and New York never doing this as evidence for why Nebraska should change its electoral system when there was no connection between those states and Nebraska's current electoral system.
The article claims that Charlie Kirk's tweet prompted Governor Jim Pillen to support a bill to change Nebraska's electoral system, but there is no evidence of this in the text.
The article presents Kirk's statement about California and New York never doing this as evidence for why Nebraska should change its electoral system when there was no connection between those states and Nebraska's current electoral system.
The article implies that Joe Biden could win the presidency if he won Nebraska's second district again and all five votes went to him, which is not true as it would only produce a 269-269 tie.
Fallacies
(70%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
Martin Pengelly's article promotes the idea that Nebraska should change its electoral system to deny Democrats a single electoral vote. The author uses quotes from Charlie Kirk, a far-right podcaster and Turning Point USA co-founder, to support his argument. Kirk argues that Nebraskans should call their legislators and governor to demand the state stop giving strength to its political enemies by changing the electoral system in order for Democrats not to win the presidency later this year. The author also mentions that Joe Biden could lose Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada but still win the electoral college 270-268 if he wins Nebraska's second district again. This is a clear example of political bias as it promotes one side over another.
Despite being one of the most Republican states thanks to this system, Omaha's electoral vote leans blue
Nebraskans should call their legislators and governor to demand their state stop pointlessly giving strength to their political enemies
This is completely fixable. Nebraska's legislature can act to make sure their state's electoral votes go towards electing the candidate the VAST majority of Nebraskans prefer.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Martin Pengelly has a conflict of interest on the topic of Nebraska's electoral system as he is an influential right-wing podcaster and co-founder of Turning Point USA.
>$30, is a co-founder of Turning Point USA, and an influential rightwing podcaster.
Nebraska Republicans are considering changing the state's practice of making it possible to earn some of its Electoral College votes by winning the popular vote in any district
Republicans could make Biden's reelection path more difficult if they successfully changed the law and under a scenario where Trump wins Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada while losing Nebraska
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that Trump's push for Nebraska Republicans to change the law will make it harder for Biden to win an Electoral College vote in the state as a fact when there is no evidence of this being true. Secondly, Pillen claims that he has supported changing Nebraska's election laws from the start, but his statement contradicts previous statements made by him and other Republicans who have failed multiple times to change these laws. Thirdly, Trump uses an image of a letter from Governor Jim Pillen as evidence for his support when it is not clear if he actually wrote or signed the letter.
The article presents the idea that Trump's push for Nebraska Republicans to change the law will make it harder for Biden to win an Electoral College vote in the state as a fact without providing any evidence of this being true.
Trump uses an image of a letter from Governor Jim Pillen as evidence for his support when it is not clear if he actually wrote or signed the letter.
Pillen claims that he has supported changing Nebraska's election laws from the start, but his statement contradicts previous statements made by him and other Republicans who have failed multiple times to change these laws.
Fallacies
(80%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author is pushing for a change in Nebraska's election law that would make it harder for Joe Biden to win an Electoral College vote. The bill has been introduced but is unlikely to pass due to opposition from Democrats and the state legislature. This push by Trump could be seen as an attempt at voter suppression, which is a form of political bias.
Democrats have twice carried Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, most recently in 2020
Donald Trump threw his support behind a last-minute push to make it harder for Joe Biden to win
Republicans could make Biden's reelection path more difficult if they successfully changed the law
Nebraska is one of only two states that divides its electoral votes among statewide and congressional district winners.
Joe Biden picked off an electoral vote in the red state by carrying a swing district in the Omaha area.
Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Trump on Tuesday endorsed a proposal to return the state to a winner-take-all system, possibly upending the final days of the state's legislative session.
Accuracy
The electoral college is a disaster for democracy
Trump tried to wrangle the electoral college to his advantage again in 2020 by encouraging a march on Washington to stop Joe Biden from winning both the popular and electoral votes.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) supports legislation that would change how his state distributes electoral votes, with all five electors going to the candidate who wins overall in each election since 1968.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents Trump's statement that he wants fairness from the electoral college as if it were a genuine desire for change when in fact it was merely an attempt to win elections. Secondly, the author uses quotes from Trump and Pillen to present their views on Nebraska's proposed changes to its electoral vote system without providing any context or analysis of these statements. This creates the impression that they are endorsing this change when in fact it is unclear whether they truly support it. Finally, the author presents a graph showing how changing Nebraska's electoral vote system would have affected previous presidential elections but fails to provide any information on how such changes might impact future elections.
The article presents a graph showing how changing Nebraska's electoral vote system would have affected previous presidential elections but fails to provide any information on how such changes might impact future elections. This is deceptive because the author does not provide any context or analysis of this graph, creating the impression that they are presenting an accurate representation of how these changes would affect future elections.
The article presents Trump's statement that he wants fairness from the electoral college as if it were a genuine desire for change when in fact it was merely an attempt to win elections. This is deceptive because the author does not provide any context or analysis of this statement, creating the impression that Trump truly supports changing the electoral vote system.
The article uses quotes from Trump and Pillen to present their views on Nebraska's proposed changes to its electoral vote system without providing any context or analysis of these statements. This is deceptive because it creates the impression that they are endorsing this change when in fact it is unclear whether they truly support it.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author of the article is Philip Bump and he has written an analysis about a proposed change to Nebraska's electoral college system. The author uses examples from previous elections to demonstrate how this change would affect the outcome of future presidential races. He also provides data on how unbalanced popular vote and electoral vote margins often are, which helps contextualize why Trump is endorsing this proposal.
The winner of Nebraska's statewide election gets two votes in the Electoral College, with each congressional district getting one additional vote. In 2016 and 2020, Joe Biden won Nebraska by narrow margins but did not receive all five electoral votes because he lost some districts to Donald Trump.
In Maine's system, both major party candidates are awarded an elector each in the statewide election and one additional elector for each congressional district. In 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump won Maine by narrow margins but did not receive all five electoral votes because he lost some districts to Hillary Clinton.
The author uses data from DailyKos' calculations of congressional district results from presidential contests to show how the Nebraska model would affect the outcome of future elections. He shows that in 2016, Trump would still have earned a majority of electoral votes under this system and in 2020, Biden would still emerge victorious with his electoral vote total landing almost exactly where his national popular vote percentage did.
Bias
(85%)
Philip Bump is hostile to the main stream media and news outlets that publish articles where the author demonstrates bias in their reporting. He takes great joy in exposing the bias in news articles so that he may better inform his readers. In this article, Philip Bump shows a clear example of ideological bias by expressing enthusiasm for a proposal to change how Nebraska distributes electoral votes.
Philip Bump praised Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen's (R) support for legislation that would change how his state distributes electoral votes.
