Skip to main content

Nebraska and the electoral college

 


Nebraska is one of just two states that does NOT follow a winner-take-all rule with reference to the allocation of its electoral votes in a Presidential contest. [The other is Maine.] 

Part of  Nebraska's allocation of electors works by congressional district. [It gives out two of its five votes on a statewide basis and the other three by virtue of the presidential votes of its three congressional districts.] The result of this is that Nebraska sometimes votes in the electoral college four to the Republican candidate, one to the Democratic, because of the blue political tint of the district that includes the city of Omaha.  

Now, there is one plausible breakdown of the state-by-state results this November that has Biden winning by 270 to 268. THAT scenario involves Biden winning that one vote in otherwise deep red Nebraska. 

If the Trump forces can change the law in Nebraska, as they are now endeavoring to do, then that scenario yield a 269 to 269 result. Unless the Biden forces could then flip a "faithless elector" the election would be decided in the House of Representatives.

This, then, is an exceptionally important matter, and it is heartening news that Nebraska seems to be holding firm. The legislative session ends on April 18.  Unless such a bill passes before then, it would have to be enacted by a special session if at all.  If seems doubtful the Governor will want to call such a session. 

So: all is well on this front. And Trump's criminal trial starts Monday. Things are beginning to shift toward sanity. 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak