Winner-take-all undermines our state's identity

The latest push to change Nebraska’s electoral system to a winner-take-all approach threatens to undermine a legacy that is central to the state’s identity: nonpartisanship. This legacy, carefully crafted by the late Sen. George W. Norris, sought to elevate the will of Nebraskans above partisan gamesmanship. The current effort, driven by the national Republican push to secure all of Nebraska’s Electoral College votes for Donald Trump, risks undoing the spirit of fair representation that Norris championed.

In 1934, Norris spearheaded Nebraska’s transition to a unicameral legislature, unique in the United States. His vision was clear: to create a system that served the people, not party interests. The nonpartisan structure of the Nebraska Legislature was designed to put transparency, debate, and compromise at the forefront, focusing on policy over politics. This vision stands in stark contrast to the winner-take-all proposal being debated today.

Adopting a winner-take-all system would fundamentally diminish the influence of individual congressional districts, stripping voters of their ability to have their voices heard on a national scale. Nebraska’s current system allows each congressional district to cast its own electoral vote, ensuring that the state’s political diversity is reflected in presidential elections. For example, the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District has voted differently than the rest of the state in multiple elections, providing a crucial opportunity for Nebraska’s urban voters to make their unique political preferences count.

Sen. Norris, who fought tirelessly for fairness and nonpartisan government, would likely oppose any effort that seeks to consolidate power in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The winner-take-all system would make the voices of those in the minority irrelevant in presidential elections, encouraging further political polarization in the state. It would also hand over control of Nebraska’s electoral votes to national political operatives rather than the citizens themselves.

Gov. Jim Pillen and others pushing for this change argue that Nebraska should follow the lead of 48 other states. But Nebraska’s system, like its nonpartisan legislature, is distinct for good reason—it ensures that each Nebraskan, regardless of where they live, has a say in who leads the country. To abandon this system would be to undermine decades of a carefully balanced electoral process that honors the state’s varied political landscape.

In a time when trust in institutions and democracy is increasingly fragile, Nebraska should uphold the principles that have served it well for nearly a century. Rather than giving in to external political pressures, Nebraska’s lawmakers should honor the legacy of Sen. George W. Norris and protect the state’s unique approach to electoral fairness.