Overcoming the Unit Rule: The Nebraska Way (Part I)

Nebraska has done it again; it has made history. The state is well known for taking risks and breaking barriers, and the 2008 presidential election is just another notch on its corn-infested belt (sarcasm is the author’s). Forty-eight states (and the District of Columbia) use something called the “unit rule” in their apportionment of their electoral votes. This system is commonly referred to as “winner-take-all”, meaning that if Candidate X gets 51% of the popular vote in a given state they will be awarded 100% of the electoral votes from that state. Only two states do not use this practice: Maine and Nebraska.

Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District Method. Under this method, one electoral vote is granted to the winner of the popular vote in each individual congressional district. Also, two electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote. The system was used in the colonial and post-colonial days, notably by Massachusetts from 1804-1820. When Maine seceded from Massachusetts (now that’s looking backwards), they continued the practice until 1828. However, Maine reconvened the method in 1972 and has used it since. Nebraska began using the Congressional District Method in 1992. Until 2008, neither state had awarded electoral votes to more than one candidate. Enter Nebraska.

The Obama for America campaign realized something early in the general election season: they had an honest-to-God chance at winning one electoral vote in Nebraska’s 2^nd Congressional District, represented largely by Omaha. And through massive spending and a commendable field campaign, Obama did just that: he won one electoral vote from Nebraska.

I am going to make a case for the outlaw of the Unit Rule. The Congressional District Method is just one method of what I call Proportional Allocation. If we should be considering the political science theory of “one person, one vote” then the Unit Rule does it a drastic disservice. (I will use Pennsylvania’s 2008 election results as the prime example for the rest of the article) The Unit Rule ensures that votes for a losing candidate do not count toward electing a president, because they are not reflected in the electoral count. Although Senator McCain received 44% of the vote in PA, he received 0% of the electoral vote. Therefore, those 2.6 million people who voted for him in PA are not counted (reflected) in the Electoral College. If they were counted then we would see a variation in the electoral count based on the number of McCain voters below Obama’s total. However, this is not the case. If McCain receives anywhere from one vote to 3.1 million votes, he still receives zero electoral votes in PA.

For further redundancy, each of Obama’s 3,192,316 voters in PA represents 0.0007% of PA’s total electoral count – they are counted. While each of McCain’s 2,586,496 represents 0.0% of PA’s total electoral count – they are not counted.

However, the Nebraska system allows each vote to have a better chance at being counted. For instance, in 2008, Obama voters in the 2^nd Congressional District had their vote count towards one electoral vote, while McCain voters in the 2^nd Congressional District still had their votes counted towards the 2 statewide electoral votes given to McCain. Granted, Obama voters in the 1^st and 3^rd Congressional District did not have their votes counted toward a larger whole, but Nebraska still offered a better chance at all votes counting toward the electoral count.

The Nebraska example demonstrates the possible need for a second (or third) option for Proportional Allocation. If there are still votes not being counted, then there must be a better alternative. In my assumption, two other possibilities exist (titles are mine): Straight Up Allocation and Winner-Take-Some.

Straight Up Allocation: In this model, the electoral votes for each state would be divided in proportion to the popular vote garnered in that state. In 2008, therefore, Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes would have been divided 55% for Obama to 44% for McCain, just as the popular vote was. This would come out to 12 electoral votes for Obama and 9 for McCain (rounding went to the victor).

Winner-Take-Some: In this model, only congressional district electoral votes would be divvied up based on the popular vote. The two senatorial electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the popular vote. Under this model, we have 19 electoral votes to divide 55% to 44% (11 to Obama, 8 to McCain). But, we award the two statewide electors to Obama as the winner of the statewide popular vote (just as in the Congressional District Model). Obama wins 13 electoral votes to McCain’s 8.

Congressional District: In Pennsylvania, based on my own rough (extremely rough) estimates, I believe that Obama would win 11 electoral votes from 11 Congressional Districts, while McCain would win 8. However, Obama would have won the two statewide electors bringing the allocation to 13 to 8 for Obama and McCain, respectively.

Under the Straight Up Allocation, each Obama voter counts for 0.0003% while each McCain voter counts for 0.0003% of the total allocation.

Under the Winner-Take-Some Model each Obama voter counts for 0.0004% for the allocation while each McCain voter counts for 0.0003%.

As you can see by this number, this type of allocation allows each vote to have the same weight as we inch closer to the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”

This article is not centered on scientific analysis, but offers a perspective on the Electoral College that is not discussed, especially in lieu of an Obama electoral blowout. However, it will be interesting to see how the electoral vote would have looked had one of these three scenarios been used across the country (the Congressional District Model will not be possible to calculate until vote tallies are finalized in early December).

Expect two more chapters to this saga. Chapter Two should have complete electoral counts based on Straight Up and Winner-Take-Some allocation. Chapter Three will look at why the Unit Rule will be politically impossible to overcome.

- Wyatt