Two Republican-led states, Nebraska and Georgia, are actively exploring or implementing changes to their Electoral College rules that could tilt the 2024 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. These moves expose the vulnerabilities of the Electoral College system and how state lawmakers can manipulate the process for partisan gain, even in the middle of a campaign. The actions taken by these states demonstrate the fragility of the U.S. electoral system, sparking debate over whether it’s time to reform or abolish the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote.
The Electoral College system has long been criticized for disproportionately favoring smaller states over larger ones. Every state, regardless of population, is guaranteed at least three electoral votes—two for its senators and one for its House representative. This structure gives voters in smaller states more influence per elector than those in larger states.
For example, Wyoming, with a population of approximately 580,000, has three electors, giving it roughly one elector for every 193,000 residents. California, on the other hand, has a population of about 38.9 million but only 54 electors, equating to one elector for every 720,000 residents. This means that a Wyoming voter has about 3.7 times more voting power than a California voter in a presidential election.
This imbalance has enabled Republican presidents such as Donald Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in 2000 to win the Electoral College—and thus the presidency—without winning the popular vote. The system’s structure disproportionately favors smaller, more rural states, many of which tend to lean Republican, further entrenching partisan advantages.
Nebraska is one of only two states, along with Maine, that allocates its Electoral College votes by congressional district. This means that each congressional district awards one electoral vote to the candidate who wins in that district, with the remaining two votes going to the statewide winner. In Nebraska, this system is under threat as Republican lawmakers push to change the rules in favor of a winner-takes-all system.
Senator Lindsey Graham and other Trump allies have been pressuring Nebraska Republicans to adopt the winner-takes-all method, eliminating the possibility of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris securing a single electoral vote from Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, a Democratic stronghold. This proposed change comes just weeks before the election, leading critics to argue that it is designed purely to benefit Trump.
The stakes are high. In a tightly contested election, every electoral vote counts, and Nebraska’s 2nd District could be a decisive factor. If Harris wins this district, it could give her a critical edge in the Electoral College, potentially securing her the presidency. However, if Nebraska adopts the winner-takes-all system, Trump would likely receive all five of the state’s electoral votes, possibly denying Harris the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
As Graham bluntly put it, “To my friends in Nebraska, that one electoral vote could be the difference between Harris being president and not, and she’s a disaster for Nebraska and the world.”
While Nebraska debates changes to its electoral process, Georgia has already implemented a rule that could disrupt the election. In August 2024, Georgia state election officials passed a regulation allowing local officials to dispute election results, giving them broad and undefined powers to challenge vote tallies. These disputes can trigger “reasonable inquiries” that have no set time limit, potentially delaying the certification of the state’s electoral votes.
This rule raises the possibility that if Harris wins Georgia’s 16 electoral votes, local officials—perhaps influenced by partisan motivations—could challenge the results and delay the submission of the state’s electors. If the delays stretch beyond the December deadline for Electoral College submissions, Georgia’s votes may not be counted at all.
If neither candidate reaches the necessary 270 electoral votes because of Georgia’s delay, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote. Since Republicans currently control a majority of state delegations, this scenario would almost certainly lead to a Trump victory, even if Harris won the popular vote.
Nebraska and Georgia are not isolated cases. These developments reveal how easily state lawmakers can manipulate the Electoral College to benefit their preferred candidate. Other states could follow suit, introducing rule changes that favor Trump or other Republican candidates, even after early voting has begun.
Such rule changes have the potential to disenfranchise voters and undermine public confidence in the democratic process. The decentralized nature of U.S. elections means that each state has significant leeway in determining how electoral votes are allocated. This gives state lawmakers the power to alter the rules mid-campaign, effectively changing the outcome of the election through procedural means rather than democratic consensus.
The increasing manipulation of the Electoral College highlights the need for electoral reform. A national popular vote for president would ensure that every vote counts equally, regardless of where a voter lives. It would also prevent states from gaming the system to favor one candidate over another, as is currently happening in Nebraska and Georgia.
Polling consistently shows that a majority of Americans favor eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll found that 65% of voters support moving to a popular vote system, while only 33% favor keeping the Electoral College. This is the lowest level of support for the Electoral College in the history of Pew’s polling on the issue.
Critics of the popular vote system argue that it would lead candidates to focus only on highly populated states, but the current Electoral College system already narrows the focus of campaigns. In the 2024 election, both Trump and Harris are only courting voters in seven key battleground states, ignoring the rest of the country. Under a popular vote system, candidates would need to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters across the country, ensuring that every vote counts equally.
Nebraska and Georgia’s efforts to manipulate the Electoral College expose the fragility of the U.S. electoral system and the ease with which partisan actors can distort democratic outcomes. These mid-campaign changes, if successful, could tip the election in Trump’s favor, regardless of the will of the majority of voters.
The case for a popular vote has never been stronger. As Lindsey Graham’s remarks about Nebraska’s electoral vote make clear, the manipulation of the Electoral College is not just a theoretical concern—it is a present and growing threat to democracy in the United States.
COMMENTS