1/538这个分数非常小——相当于不到0.2%。但上周，它被证明足够大，一群内布拉斯加州共和党人试图改变他们的州如何在选举总统的选举团中授予选举人票。
内布拉斯加州只有选举人团538张选举人票中的5张——这是我们出版物名称的灵感来源——但它只是不将所有选举人票授予总统选举中的全州获胜者的两个州之一。相反，缅因州和内布拉斯加州将选举人票授予每个国会选区的获胜者——每个选区一张——并将另外两张票授予全州获胜者。这意味着尽管内布拉斯加州是一个坚定的共和党州，但民主党总统候选人有机会从其竞争对手那里赢得一张选举人票奥马哈第二国会选区，发生在2008和2020。希望在2024年避免这种可能性，前总统唐纳德·特朗普鼓励内布拉斯加州共和党人提议该州实行赢家通吃制度——尽管州议会投票否决了一项尝试在4月3日这样做。
内布拉斯加州案实际上只是美国历史上一长串改变各州选举人票发放方式的提案中的最新一例。这些方案经常试图让支持者的政党有更好的机会获得更多的州选举人票——在现代很少成功。事实上，上一次一个州改变它如何授予选举人票是1991年的内布拉斯加州当该州从全州范围的赢家通吃制度转变为目前的地区制度时。更广泛地说，一个州规则的改变不太可能影响总统选举的结果，但共和党人最近为确保内布拉斯加州增加一张选举人票所做的努力有助于说明政党在当今竞争激烈的选举环境中寻求哪怕是最小优势的决心。
赢家通吃——在大多数情况下
宪法让各州自行决定决定如何分配他们的选举人票相当于一个州的国会代表团的规模(所有众议员加两名参议员，其中三票分配给哥伦比亚特区)。如今，除缅因州和内布拉斯加州外，每个州都采用基于全州总统选举结果的赢家通吃制度。但情况并非总是如此。
在美国建国初期，许多州授予他们选举人票由州议会选择选举人。其他国家在州和/或区一级使用普选，而一些国家采用混合制度，例如将普选和立法机构的偏好相结合来挑选选举人。但是，寻求在选举团中最大化各州权力的政党逐渐打动了大多数州一个让一方通常会在全州选举中赢得该州的全部选举人票。到1836年，几乎每个州(26个州中的25个州)都使用了“普通票”制度，在这种制度下，每个政党的个人总统选举人在全州范围内竞选，得票最多的人——他们通常，但并不总是如此来自同一个政党——成为该州的选举人。
在20世纪上半叶，各州开始简化普通票的概念，使用一种短投票“在总统选举中，允许选民为一个政党的总统和副总统候选人投票，这转化为对该政党选举人名单的投票。这一转变使得选票不那么混乱，也更容易在日益普及的投票机上使用。它还几乎消除了选民在多个政党之间分割总统选举人的能力。每个州现在都使用某种形式的这种选票设计来分配全州的选举人票，尽管数量很少仍然列出选举人的名字总统票旁边。
改变体制的尝试一直在进行
尽管近两个世纪以来，全州范围内赢家通吃的选举人票分配方式一直占据主导地位，但这种方式并非没有争议。许多提案在州和国家一级流传，以改变这一过程——通常带有党派目标，即帮助一个政党或另一个政党赢得更多的选举人票。
为数不多的真正改变州规则的尝试之一在1892年大选前来到密歇根州民主党在1890年中期选举中控制了州政府，并改变了该州授予选举人票的方式。不是将所有14个席位分配给全州范围内的获胜者，而是根据国会选区的结果分配12个席位，另外两个席位分配给更大的东部和西部选区的获胜者。因此，民主党人获得五张选举人票尽管共和党赢得了密歇根州，但这并没有影响整体结果，民主党人格罗弗·克利夫兰在选举团中赢得了剩余的席位。但密歇根州的情况也引发了一个至今仍有共鸣的法律案件:麦弗逊诉布莱克案。最高法院在该案中裁定宪法确实赋予了各州权力分配和选择他们喜欢的选举人。尽管如此，密歇根州的选区制度是短命的——共和党人在1892年的选举中重新控制了州政府，并逆转了这一变化。
快进到2004年，科罗拉多州选民对提议的宪法修正案发表意见转向根据普选结果按比例分配选举人票。值得注意的是，这次竞选是在选票上由于民主联盟的努力2000年大选后，共和党人乔治·w·布什以271张选举人票(比保证多数所需的票数多一张)击败民主党人阿尔·戈尔的266张选举人票赢得总统大选。如果比例代表制在2000年实施，布什会以微弱优势胜出遗失因为戈尔会选择在科罗拉多州，支持布什的选举人票增加了八分之三(戈尔获得了266张选举人票，而不是267张选举人票由于一个不忠实的民主选举人谁说的她会投票给戈尔如果他能赢的话)。然而，科罗拉多州选民拒绝了这项措施65%对35%——民主党人可能会对这个结果感到高兴，因为该州从此变成了可靠的蓝色在总统竞选中。
在全国范围内，布什在2000年和2004年的险胜帮助点燃了更广泛的逐州运动，的全国民众投票倡议，根据该倡议，各州将把所有选举人票交给全国普选获胜者。尽管宪法问题层出不穷，但16个州和哥伦比亚特区(相当于205张选举人票——距离关键的270票还差65票)已经签署了竞选协议。很明显，作为民主党人，这些都是倾向于民主党的州更加支持共和党人在2000年和2016年赢得了总统大选，尽管输掉了普选。
另一方面，民主党人巴拉克奥巴马(Barack Obama)在2008年和2012年的胜利，引发了共和党支持的改变战场州选举人团制度的一系列失败举措。2011年，宾夕法尼亚州共和党人(他们完全控制了该州政府重画一幅有利的国会地图同年)提议的转换从赢家通吃到以国会选区为基础的方法。如果该法案生效，奥巴马在2012年只会赢得7张选举人票，而不是全部20张选举人票。2012年大选后，共和党人开始努力在2012年转向比例代表制或选区代表制密歇根,俄亥俄州,宾夕法尼亚州,威斯康星州和弗吉尼亚。回想起来，这些提议再次显得相当短视:如果这些提议得到实施，很可能会导致特朗普在2016年赢得更少的选举人票，因为他在这五个州中的四个州(除弗吉尼亚州外)赢得了全州选票。尽管如此，一些威斯康星州共和党人再次尝试以应对拜登2020年在该州的险胜。
甚至今年在内布拉斯加州的努力也有很多先例:在过去的九次立法会议中，共和党议员在八次会议上提交了法案，使内布拉斯加州再次成为赢家通吃的州。2016年4月，他们甚至来到了战胜阻挠议事的一票推进其中一项提案。但是尽管他们可能会继续尝试，他们似乎已经没有时间了在2024年大选前实现这一目标。现行立法未能通过委员会，并出价将其附在一项单独的立法中上周被裁定与本案无关后就没了。共和党州长吉姆·皮伦支持赢家通吃的提议，他也指出它缺乏33名成员的支持必须克服强有力的阻挠议事规则在内布拉斯加州49人的一院制立法机构中。(其实最近的派对转变给予共和党33名成员的绝对优势，但党内转换者反对这一提议。)
这并不是说所有改革选举人团的尝试都带有明显的党派意图。1948年、1960年和1968年的势均力敌的选举帮助复兴二战后联邦政府有意改变选举人团。在20世纪50年代和60年代，各种国会提案提出宪法修正案实施地区制、比例制或混合制。1969年，房子通过了宪法修正案废除选举人团，通过全国普选选出总统，但这项措施当南方参议员阻挠时，该法案摇摇欲坠在参议院。
现代国家层面的变革也没有明显的党派意图。在1968年大选之后，缅因州在1969年从赢家通吃转变为以地区为基础的制度来减少这种可能性候选人只要获得全州三分之一以上的选票就可以赢得全部选举人票。1991年，内布拉斯加州改为以地区为基础的方法鼓励候选人更多地关注这个原本属于共和党的州。
一张选举人票不太可能重要，但它可能重要
虽然这类提议通常不会受到关注，但它们肯定会受到很多关注。但是，即使这一计划得以实现，它对选举会产生多大的影响呢?事实是，仅仅一个州改变其授予选举人票的方式不太可能影响总统选举的结果。自内战以来的39次总统选举中，只有一次是由单一选举人投票决定的极具争议的1876年比赛只有另外三个州非常接近，以至于选举人团的结果取决于一个州的选举结果临界点“国家:1916年、2000年和2004年。当然，其中两个结果出现在过去四分之一世纪，即我们当前竞争激烈的选举时代，这种情况在2024年再次发生的可能性是现实的，如果不是非常可能的话。
538创始人兼前主编内特·西尔弗最近检查在这种情况下，来自内布拉斯加州的一张共和党选举人票将在选举人团中以269比269的票数领先特朗普，而不是拜登以270比268的票数获胜。(在平局的情况下，房子会举行临时选举候选人需要得到大多数州的支持代表团赢得共和党的投票很有可能获胜。)西尔弗根据拜登在2020年以最微弱优势赢得的六个州——亚利桑那州、佐治亚州、密歇根州、内华达州、宾夕法尼亚州和威斯康星州——的波动情况研究了64种可能的结果，发现内布拉斯加州的额外选票仅在其中一种情况下改变了结果。扩大摇摆州的范围，将佛罗里达州、明尼苏达州、新罕布什尔州和北卡罗来纳州包括在内，1024个组合中只有7个(不到1%)涉及一票改变结果。
诚然，其中一些假设并不牵强。例如，西尔弗六态分析中的单一相关组合涉及一个现实的场景拜登保住了密歇根州、宾夕法尼亚州和威斯康星州的“蓝墙”州，而特朗普则拿下了亚利桑那州、佐治亚州和内华达州的“阳光地带”三州。最终，内布拉斯加州关于一张选举人票的辩论证明了当今的政治是一场多么微妙的游戏。由于选举人团不会很快去任何地方，政党将继续寻找他们可以争夺的每一片土地，内布拉斯加州第二选区只是最新的战场。
It's really hard to change Electoral College rules
The fraction 1/538 is extremely small — equivalent to less than 0.2 percent. But last week, it proved big enough that a group of Nebraska Republicanstried to changehow their state awards electoral votes in the Electoral College, the institution that elects the president.
Nebraska has just five of the Electoral College's 538 electoral votes — the inspiration for our publication's name — but it's just one of two states that don't award all of their electoral votes to the statewide winner in a presidential election. Instead, Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district — one per district — and give the other two votes to the statewide winner. That means that while Nebraska is a solidly Republican state, Democratic presidential nominees have a shot at winning one electoral vote from its competitiveOmaha-based 2nd Congressional District, which happened in2008and2020. Looking to avert that possibility in 2024,former President Donald Trump encouragedNebraska Republicans to move the state to a winner-take-all system — although the state legislaturevoted down an attemptto do so on April 3.
The Nebraska case is actually just the latest in a long run of proposals throughout American history to change how states award electoral votes. These schemes have often tried to give the proponents' party a better chance of carrying more of a state's electoral votes — and have rarely been successful in modern times. In fact, the last time a state altered how it awarded its electoral voteswas Nebraska in 1991, when the state converted from statewide winner-take-all to its current district-based system. More broadly speaking, a change to one state's rules is very unlikely to affect the outcome of a presidential election, but Republicans' recent efforts to secure even one additional electoral vote in Nebraska help illustrate how determined parties are to seek out even the smallest advantage in today's highly competitive electoral environment.
Winner-take-all — for the most part
The Constitutionleaves it up to the statesto decidehow to allocatetheir electoral votes, which equal the size of a state's congressional delegation (all representatives plus two senators, withthree votes assigned tothe District of Columbia). Today, every state except Maine and Nebraska uses a winner-take-all system based on the statewide presidential election result. But that wasn't always the case.
In the nation's early days, many statesawarded their electoral votesby having the state legislature choose electors. Others used the popular vote at the state and/or district level, while some employed hybrid systems that used, for instance, a combination of the popular vote and legislature's preferences to pick electors. But political parties, seeking to maximize each state's power in the Electoral College, gradually moved most statestoward a system where one partywould usually win all of the state's electoral votes based on a statewide election. By 1836, almost every state (25 of 26) used the "general ticket" system, in which each party's individual presidential electors ran statewide, and the top vote-getters — who usually,but not always, were from the same party — became the state's electors.
In the first half of the 20th century, states began simplifying the general ticket concept by using a "short ballot" in presidential elections, allowing voters to mark their ballots for a party's presidential and vice presidential candidates, which translated into a vote for that party's slate of electors. This shift made ballots less confusing and easier to use on increasingly prevalent voting machines. It also all but eliminated voters' ability to split their choices for presidential electors across multiple parties. Every state now uses some form of this ballot design to allot its statewide electoral votes, although a small numberstill list the electors' namesnext to the presidential ticket.
Attempts to change the system have been constant
While the use of the statewide winner-take-all approach to divvy up electoral votes has remained dominant for nearly two centuries, it hasn't gone uncontested. Many proposals have circulated at the state and national level to change this process — often with a partisan goal of helping one party or another win more electoral votes.
One of the few attempts that actually changed a state's rulescame in Michigan ahead of the 1892 election, after Democrats captured the state government in the 1890 midterms and changed how the state awarded electoral votes. Instead of giving all 14 to the statewide winner, 12 were apportioned by congressional district result and the other two went to the winners of larger eastern and western districts. As a result, Democratspicked up five electoral voteseven as the GOP carried Michigan, though it didn't influence the overall outcome, which Democrat Grover Cleveland won with room to spare in the Electoral College. But the Michigan situation also sparked a legal case that still resonates today: McPherson v. Blacker, in which the Supreme Court ruledthat the Constitution did give states the powerto apportion and choose electors as they preferred. Still, Michigan's district-based system was short-lived — Republicans retook control of state government in the 1892 election and reversed the change.
Fast forward to 2004, when Colorado votersweighed in on a proposed constitutional amendmentto shift to a proportional allocation of electoral votes based on the popular vote. Notably, this campaign was on the ballotthanks to Democratic-aligned effortsin the wake of the 2000 election, when Republican George W. Bush won the presidency with 271 electoral votes (one more than required to guarantee a majority) to Democrat Al Gore's 266. Had the proportional system been in place in 2000, Bush would've narrowlylostbecause Gorewould've pickedup three of eight electoral votes in Colorado, which backed Bush statewide (Gore had 266 electoral votes instead of 267due to a faithless Democratic electorwho saidshe would've voted for Goreif he could've won). However,Colorado voters rejected the measure65 percent to 35 percent — a result Democrats are probably happy about because the statehas since become reliably bluein presidential races.
At the national level, Bush's narrow wins in 2000 and 2004 helped sparka broader state-by-state campaign, theNational Popular Voteinitiative, under which states would give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Although constitutional questions abound, 16 states plus the District of Columbia (worth 205 electoral votes — 65 short of the critical 270-vote mark) have signed on to the campaign. Tellingly, these are all Democratic-leaning states, as Democratsare more supportiveof using the national popular vote to elect the president than Republicans, who won the presidency in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote.
On the flip side, Democrat Barack Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 ignited a number of failed Republican-backed measures to change electoral college systems in battleground states. In 2011, Pennsylvania Republicans (who took full control of the state's government andredrew an advantageous congressional mapthat same year)proposed switchingfrom winner-take-all to a congressional district-based approach. Had it taken effect, Obama would've won only seven electoral votes in 2012 instead of all 20. Following the 2012 election, Republicans launched efforts to move to either proportional or district-based approaches inMichigan,Ohio,Pennsylvania,WisconsinandVirginia. Once again, these proposals appear pretty shortsighted in retrospect: If enacted, they would've likely led Trump to win fewer electoral votes in 2016 because he won the statewide vote in four of those five states (all but Virginia). Despite all that,some Wisconsin Republicans tried againin response to Biden's narrow 2020 victory in the state.
Even this year's effort in Nebraska has plenty of antecedents: Republican-aligned legislators have filed bills in eight of the past nine legislative sessions to make Nebraska winner-take-all again. In April 2016, they even came withinone vote of overcoming a filibusterto advance one of those proposals. But while they're likely to keep on trying, theyappear to have run out of timeto make it happen ahead of the 2024 election. Existing legislationfailed to make it out of committee, and a bidto attach it to a separate piece of legislationcame up short last week after it was ruled not germane. Republican Gov. Jim Pillen — who backs the winner-take-all proposal — has alsonoted that it lacks support from the 33 membersnecessary to overcomethe robust filibuster rulein Nebraska's 49-member unicameral legislature. (In fact,a recent party switchgave Republicans a 33-member supermajority, but the party switcher has opposed the proposal.)
That's not to say that all attempts to transform the Electoral College have had an obvious partisan intent. Close elections in 1948, 1960 and 1968helped revivefederal interest in changing the Electoral College following World War II. In the 1950s and '60s,various congressional proposalsput forthconstitutional amendmentsto implement district-based, proportionally based or hybrid systems. In 1969, the Housepassed a constitutional amendmentto abolish the Electoral College and elect a president with a national popular vote, but the measurefaltered when Southern senators filibustered itin the Senate.
Neither of the state-level changes in modern times had an obvious partisan intent, either. In the wake of the 1968 election, Maine shifted from winner-take-all to its district-based system in 1969to make it less likelythat a candidate could win all of its electoral votes with just over a third of the statewide popular vote. And in 1991, Nebraskachanged to its district-based methodto encourage candidates to pay more attention to what was otherwise a safely Republican state.
One electoral vote is unlikely to matter, but it could
While these sorts of proposals have usually failed to gain traction, they certainly receive a lot of attention. But even if one were to come to fruition, just how much of an electoral impact would it have? The truth is that just one state changing how it awards electoral votes is unlikely to affect the outcome of the presidential election. In 39 presidential elections since the Civil War, only one has been decided by a single electoral vote —the highly disputed 1876 race— and just three others have been close enough that the Electoral College outcome hinged on the result in a single "tipping-point" state: 1916, 2000 and 2004. Of course, two of those results came in the past quarter century, during our current era of highly competitive elections, and the possibility that it could happen again in 2024 is realistic, if not very probable.
538 founder and former editor-in-chief Nate Silverrecently examinedthe conditions under which one Republican electoral vote from Nebraska would effectively give Trump victory by producing a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College instead of a 270-268 win for Biden. (In the case of a tie, the House wouldhold a contingent electionin which a candidate needs support from a majority of statedelegationsto win — a vote the GOPis very likely to win.) Silver looked at the 64 possible outcomes based on swings in the six states Biden carried by the narrowest margin in 2020 — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and found that the extra Nebraska vote altered the outcome in only one of these scenarios. Broadening the pool of swing states to include Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire and North Carolina, just 7 of 1,024 combinations (less than 1 percent) involved that one vote shifting the outcome.
To be sure, some of these hypotheticals aren't far-fetched. For example, the single relevant combination in Silver's six-state analysisinvolves a realistic scenariowhere Biden holds onto the "Blue Wall" states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin while Trump flips the Sun Belt trio of Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. Ultimately, the Nebraska debate over a single electoral vote exemplifies how today's politics can be a game of inches. With the Electoral College not going anywhere anytime soon, parties will keep looking to claim every speck of ground they can, and Nebraska's 2nd District is just the latest battleground.
