The Dilemma of Senator McDonnell

Mike McDonnell is a 58-year-old state senator from Nebraska. Last April, this retired firefighter, unionist, and Catholic switched his affiliation to the Republican Party after a series of disagreements with Democrats over his conservative stances on social issues like abortion.

McDonnell's story could serve as an example of the growing divide between a working-class Midwestern voter profile and the Democratic Party. Left-leaning on labor issues but socially conservative, he feels out of place with the current ideological stance of what was traditionally his party and more at ease with what Donald Trump offers. An interesting story, no doubt, but not one that seems likely to grab U.S. media attention just weeks before the presidential election. So why has this senator's story been prominently featured in the press lately? Because, incredibly enough, the identity of the next President of the United States may be in his hands.

The occupant of the White House is not elected directly by a majority of votes. Nor is he designated by Parliament. There is a specific body tasked with this job: the Electoral College. It consists of 538 voters appointed by the states every four years. In 2016, Hillary Clinton surpassed Trump by nearly three million votes, but the Republican won by almost 80 electors and was the final victor.

Each state appoints a number of voters equal to its sum of senators and representatives in Congress. The delegations in that body are proportional to the state's population but with a minimum. None, however small, has fewer than three representatives. This creates distortions in vote representativeness that favor less populated states. In California, the most populous state, each elector corresponds to more than 700,000 votes. In Wyoming, at the other end of the spectrum, the number drops to 200,000.

Each state can choose how to allocate its voters. In 48 out of 50 states, the party with the most support takes all of them. For example, in the 2020 elections, Joe Biden beat Trump by less than 0.3 points in Arizona. The result: the current president secured 11 electors there while his opponent got none. This system means that most states, where the winner is decided before campaigning begins, receive no attention from candidates. No one doubts that all New York electors will go to Kamala Harris this year or those from Mississippi to Trump, so no one campaigns there. Resources are focused on a few points where the winner is unclear.

Let's return to Nebraska. In this corner of America's great plains, Trump's lead currently approaches twenty points. Following the logic of a winner-takes-all system, this state should not be newsworthy in the final sprint of the campaign. However, Nebraska defies this logic as it is one of only two states—along with Maine—where the winner does not take all voters. Of its five electors, only two go to the candidate with most votes. The others are allocated based on who wins each of its three congressional districts for the House of Representatives. Winning one means securing an elector. District 2 corresponds to Omaha, the state's main city where Harris has serious chances of winning.

Can a single elector make a difference? In an election context that all polls predict will be very tight between Trump and Harris, it might be possible. The scenario would be as follows: both candidates win in their expected districts and in states without a clear favorite; Trump wins in Sun Belt states (Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina), while Harris wins in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—the so-called Blue Wall referring to this party's traditional color. In this scenario, Trump would have 268 electors and his rival 270. The majority in the Electoral College is 270; thus victory by a narrow margin would go to Harris.

Now imagine Nebraska changes its electoral system to give all its electors to the state's winner. Harris would lose District 2's elector which would go to Trump instead. In this case each candidate would have 269 voters apiece favoring Trump because if there's a tie future presidents are chosen by House delegations where Republicans hold majority.

This arithmetic does not escape Republicans who want Nebraska to change its electoral system in time for November's elections so all its electors go to their state's top vote-getter.

This is where McDonnell comes into play Republicans had 32 out-of-50 members in unicameral legislature—Nebraska’s unique for lacking two parliamentary chambers—since senator switched sides they now have 33 What’s qualified majority needed change electoral system? Precisely 33 votes Thus disgruntled politician may hold future distribution Nebraska’s electors deciding next president.

This senator seems stuck between rock hard place Last week attended meeting state national GOP politicians where Trump called express desire change system Opposing leader risky future member party On other hand once ends term State Senate looks like McDonnell wants run mayor Omaha Changing electoral system clearly disadvantage Democrats bad strategy aspiring lead city likely Harris win.

While awaiting senator’s final word Nebraska Democrats urged social media voters call write him stand firm Republicans urged followers pray fast change mind latter seems ineffective Monday McDonnell announced statement less than two months elections not time reform And favor Omaha continuing choose elector noted relevance local economy parties compelled campaign city.

In response McDonnell’s statements Nebraska Democratic chair thanked former party colleague decision protects state’s electoral map blue point Trump’s response less complimentary "Unfortunately Democrat turned Republican (?) […] decided without reason block common sense big Republican victory."

McDonnell suggests press release popular vote among Nebraskans decide once for all state’s electoral system seems good way avoid current senator former firefighter finding himself center such massive firestorm again.