Instead of changing the rules, embrace the purpose of the game

After a high-profile debate and no shortage of political pressure, the effort to return Nebraska’s presidential election system to “winner take all” has stalled – at least for now. The bill failed to overcome a filibuster in the Legislature, preserving Nebraska’s 30-year tradition of allocating electoral votes by congressional district.

This is a sensitive matter. We have friends on both sides and are only about five blocks from the Norris House, so we can’t help but wonder how George might have approached the question.

Let’s be honest. The 2nd Congressional District – the lone Nebraska district that went blue in 2008, 2020, and again in 2024 – has become a point of frustration for conservatives. Rather than rethinking how to serve urban voters, the instinct is to redraw the scoreboard.

The unspoken challenge is to confront the negative stereotypes that follow conservatives into urban areas. Most are the result of being defined negatively by the opposition – but a few, regrettably, are earned. Conservatives are too often seen as indifferent to racial and social justice issues. In most cases, the accusation is unfair, but the perception is real – and it costs votes.

Likewise, skepticism of government growth is often seen as disregard for those who rely on social programs. That’s where education is needed on both sides.

The fact is, conservative principles can resonate in cities. Economic empowerment, school choice, safe streets, entrepreneurship, homeownership – those aren’t rural values. They’re American values. They belong as much to Omaha as to Ogallala.

There’s a long tradition of conservatives who understood this. Jack Kemp called for “an urban agenda for the GOP” more than 30 years ago. More recently, Senator Tim Scott has championed opportunity zones, access to capital, and generational wealth in underserved neighborhoods. These aren’t giveaways – they’re investments in development, entrepreneurship, and self-sufficiency.

Opponents of “winner take all” argue that the current system encourages national figures to pay attention to Nebraska, which might otherwise be written off as an easy win for the right. We’d gently suggest the greater opportunity is for the right to make inroads into changing urban landscapes.

The Second District isn’t just a prize – it’s a proving ground. It offers a rare opportunity to be a political petri dish: compact enough to manage, diverse enough to matter, and winnable enough to inspire. Instead of treating it as just another contest, the GOP could use it as a test market – for policies, messaging, and outreach that might resonate in other mid-sized metros. What works in Omaha may not work everywhere, but it’s a start.

For now, LB3 is stalled and unlikely to reemerge this session. It may not return in the second half of the 109th Legislature – but it will return. In the meantime, if the rest of the state wants Omaha at its side on Election Day, it might consider rethinking how it competes there. That means listening. It means investing. It means showing up before the next election.

The energy spent trying to silence the Second District would be better spent serving it. If the majority party wants to prove conservative leadership works, it should start by delivering results to voters who’ve been hardest to reach. Instead of changing the rules, try winning the game.