One Nebraska

This month, Nebraska lawmakers will debate whether to pass legislation that makes Nebraska’s electoral system “winner-take-all.”

Nebraska gives one electoral vote to Democrats

In last November’s election, four of the state’s five electoral votes went to Donald Trump, with one from Nebraska’s Second Congressional District (the “blue dot”) going to Kamala Harris.

“Blue dot” proponents hope the practice of splitting electoral votes in presidential elections (followed only by Nebraska and Maine) spreads to more states.

Jane Kleeb, chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said Nebraskans should be proud of the Second District’s “blue dot” because it makes the state “unique.” 

And so, Kleeb said, “let the other states follow our lead in true representative democracy.”

She sees the “blue dot” as an opportunity to influence national politics and attract media attention; I see the “blue dot” as fomenting urban vs. rural resentment, and as a wedge that drives Nebraskans apart. 

The sharpest divide in American politics is urban vs. rural. 

Statistics show that roughly two-thirds of urban voters choose Democrat candidates; roughly two-thirds of rural voters choose Republicans. Though many Nebraskans can trace their family histories back to the farm, the growth of cities means more people are removed from those early pioneers who shaped our state’s identity.

This principle holds true for other states.

The Urban-Rural Divide

In February, Indiana’s House of Representatives passed a bill to consider annexing 33 counties in rural Illinois, a move toward which some Illinois residents have worked for five years. Illinois ranks third nationally in the export of agricultural commodities, and rural residents believe their values and way of life are worlds away from Cook County and the city of Chicago.

Like those Illinois residents, rural voters in Nebraska, especially in western Nebraska, argue that their interests are underrepresented in state politics. While the state’s economy is anchored in Omaha and Lincoln, most of Nebraska is dedicated to the production of corn, soybeans, cattle, and other agricultural products.

One of the goals of Nebraska politics should be to reconcile differences, to speak with one voice rather than two.

That was the secret to Ben Nelson’s winning campaign for Nebraska Governor in 1990.

Nelson, a lawyer, reached out to people from across the state, encouraging a sense of solidarity in “One Nebraska.” He asked voters to think about issues in terms of their families, neighbors, and community. Nelson said the secret to his success was to make government work for everybody, and to stop fighting over whether people are rural or urban.

But the “blue dot” aggravates that division, splitting Nebraska’s electorate and encouraging politicians to focus time, money, and attention on urban rather than nationwide issues.

How to persuade western Nebraska not to secede

If rural Nebraska counties were to follow Illinois’ example, they certainly would find a more favorable tax climate in South Dakota or Wyoming. I hope they wouldn’t find a stronger spirit of solidarity and state pride.

To solve the problem, state legislators have put forward a “winner-take-all” bill to align Nebraska with 48 other states, though recent history suggests Legislative Bill 3 may not pass into law.

Whatever the outcome of this legislative session, something needs to change. 

Less “blue dot” or “winner-take-all.” 

More “One Nebraska,” standing tall.

This article was originally published by RealClearPublicAffairs and made available via RealClearWire.