To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska

← 2008 November 2, 2010 (2010-11-02) 2012 →

All 3 Nebraska seats to the United States House of Representatives
  Majority party Minority party
 
Party Republican Democratic
Last election 3 0
Seats won 3 0
Seat change 3 0
Popular vote 327,986 137,524
Percentage 67.55 28.32

The 2010 congressional elections in Nebraska were held on November 2, 2010 to determine who will represent the state of Nebraska in the United States House of Representatives. Representatives are elected for two-year terms; those elected served in the 112th Congress from January 3, 2011 until January 3, 2013.

Nebraska has three seats in the House, apportioned according to the 2000 United States Census. Its 2008-2009 congressional delegation consisted of three Republicans: Jeff Fortenberry in District 1, Lee Terry in District 2 and Adrian Smith in District 3. All three ran for reelection.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    362 729
  • ✪ Electoral college | American civics | US History | Khan Academy

Transcription

In the US, we don't directly vote for our president or vice president. Instead, we use something called the Electoral College. So when you show up to vote on Election Day-- and an election day will happen in November of an election year. And it could happen as early as November 2, and it could happen as late as November 8. And it's going to be the Tuesday after the first Monday in the month. So it'll be November 2 if the first Monday is November 1, and it'll be November 8 if the first Monday is November 7. And so you go on election day, and you will see a ballot that will have the presidential candidates. It'll have their parties there. It will have the vice presidential candidates, and you'll vote for one of them. But in actuality, when you are voting for Candidate A-- and let's say Candidate A is a Democrat-- you're not actually voting for Candidate A. You're actually voting for a slate of electors who promise to vote for that candidate. And it isn't in most states proportional based on what proportion of people vote for one candidate or another. In most of the states, except for Maine and Nebraska, it is a winner take all system. So what do I mean by that? So right here, you have the breakdown of the United States, by state, of how many electors words each state gets. And the number of electors is essentially the number of congressmen that that state has. For example, California has two senators. Every state has two senators. California has two senators and 53 congressmen. And those of you who aren't familiar with it, every state gets two senators, and the House of Representatives is dictated by population. California is a huge state, two senators, 53 representatives. You have Texas, two senators and it has 32 representatives. You go to Louisiana, you have two senators and you have seven representatives. So the electors per state is based on the total number of congressmen, so the number of senators plus the number of representatives. That's what gives us 55 in California, nine in Louisiana, 34 in Texas. But what's interesting here is it's a winner take all system in every state except for Nebraska and Maine. In every other state, if I get 51% of the vote in Texas, I get all 34 electoral votes in the Electoral College. If I get 51% or even if I get 50.1%, just a slight majority of the votes in California, I will get all of the votes for California in the Electoral College. And in general, or in actuality, the president is whoever gets the majority of the electoral votes in the United States. And right now, that threshold is, or that magic number-- you could think of it that way-- is 270 Electoral College votes. If no candidate is able to hit this threshold of 270 Electoral College votes, then it will go to the US Congress. And in the US Congress, it's interesting, because it isn't one congressman, one vote. Or actually, I should say the US House of Representatives. It'll go to the US House of Representatives. And it won't be one representative, one vote. What will happen is the representatives in each state will vote together, and each state will get only one vote. So in a tiebreaker, the big states really, really lose out, because in a tiebreaker, Texas will get only one vote. California will get one vote. And Alaska will get one vote, and Rhode Island will get one vote. So Rhode Island will have just as much say in a tiebreaker as California will over who will be president. Then they'll just keep voting until someone gets a simple majority of the votes by state. Now, there's one other twist here. It's that the District of Columbia-- Washington, DC right over here-- in Congress gets no representatives. They have no senators, and they have no representatives. But they do get three electoral votes when it comes to deciding who is going to be president. Now, you might already be getting a sense here that maybe this winner take all system might lead to some distortions, and the biggest distortion of all is you can imagine a candidate who wins the popular vote and loses the election or loses in the Electoral College. And you might think, well, gee, how can that happen? And the way to think about it is, imagine someone-- let's say someone gets-- with the states that they win, they get huge majorities. So let's say there's a conservative candidate, and he or she gets huge majorities in the states they win. 80% in Texas. They get 80% in Mississippi. They get 80% in Oklahoma. The get huge majorities in the states that they win. And the states that they lose, they barely lose. And they barely lose those really big states. So let's say in Florida, that candidate gets 49% of the vote. So they had a lot of votes in Florida, but not enough to win it. The other person, let's say, gets 51%. All 27 go to the other candidate. Let's say the same thing happens in California. That candidate got 49% of the vote. The opponent, let's say, gets 51% of the vote. All 55 go to California. You get no credit for that 49%. You get no credit for that 49% in Florida. So in this situation, this candidate might actually end up with the majority, barely losing the states they lose, and trouncing the other candidate in the states that they win, but despite that, actually getting fewer Electoral College votes. Now, there's a few clarifications I want to make, especially ones that have confused me in the past. One of them is because you have the same number of Electoral College votes as you have US representatives plus senators, there's kind of this feeling that maybe each district sends its own elector to the state capital to decide who the president is. And it doesn't quite work that way. So this right here is the panel of electors for Louisiana in 2008. And you can see right over here, each of the parties have their own slate of electors. And these are either decided by the party themselves, or they're decided by the candidates' teams. And even though you have someone here for each district and then you have these at-large candidates, it's not like-- let's take a situation. This actually happened in Louisiana, where John McCain got a majority of the state. So John McCain and Sarah Palin got a majority of the state. It's not the case that-- let's say in the second district, which is New Orleans, let's say that the second district, a majority of the people actually voted for Barack Obama. It is not the case that Kenneth Garrett in 2008 would have been the chosen elector. Even though they divide things by district and they have these at-large candidates, it is actually a state-wide election. So they don't look at who won each of the districts. They just say, look, John McCain and Sarah Palin won the entire state. So all of these electors are the ones that are going to go to the state capital in December and decide who they want to pledge their vote for. So even if Obama won just the Second Congressional District, that's not how it's thought about in the Electoral College. It's just a state-wide election. McCain got the majority of the state. All of the electors will be chosen from McCain's slate or from the Republican Party slate. And then they're going to go to the state capital. In the case of Louisiana, it would be Baton Rouge. And they will decide who they want to pledge their votes to. And all of the electors in all of the states go to their designated location, usually the state capital, on the same day. And usually that is some day in December. And they pick the president, although by that point, everyone knows who the president is, because the actual election was in early November. And people know which way the votes went and which way the actual Electoral College votes went. Now, I did mention that there are two states that don't do this winner take all, Nebraska and Maine. And in Nebraska and Maine, when you go vote, it really is by congressional district. Nebraska has three congressional districts. So in those three congressional districts, if one of them goes to the Democrat and two goes to the Republican, then they'll have one electoral vote for the Democrat and two for the Republican. And then they have two at-large votes that are decided the same way, in kind of the winner take all basis. If you get 51% of the vote on a statewide basis, you get the two at-large votes. Same thing for Maine, but Maine has two congressional districts. So two of the congressional districts could go either way. And then the at-large are based on a state-wide vote. Now, you could imagine the other kind of unfair thing here, other than the popular vote versus the Electoral College vote. You could imagine it makes some states better represented than others. So if you just divide population by the number of electors, you see the larger states, each elector is representing many, many more people. This is California right here. Each elector is representing over 600,000 people. And in the smaller states-- this is Wyoming right here-- each elector is representing under 200,000 people. So in Wyoming, people are getting kind of three times the representation as they would in California on a per capita vote. But what makes it even a little bit more skewed, because it's winner take all and the candidates aren't silly and they want to make sure that they spend their money and their visits and their time in the most leveragable way, it actually creates this weird scenario where candidates will often ignore huge parts of the population. And they ignore them because those huge parts of the population are unlikely to swing one way or the other. So for example, California is very reliably Democratic and Texas is very reliably Republican. So this right here-- this is a fascinating graph, at least in my mind-- it shows where George W. Bush and John Kerry spent the last five weeks of the 2004 election. Let me close that right there. This top graph shows where they actually spent their time, so each of these little hands here is a visit in those final five weeks. And each of these dollar signs is a million dollars spent on marketing and advertising, on ads and whatever else, in those states. And you can see, California and Texas, the two biggest states, they didn't spend enough money to the threshold to get dollar a sign written there. So they didn't even spend $1,000,000 on these huge states. They only had a few visits to California, and Texas had no visits in the final five weeks. So what happens is that candidates spend a disproportionate amount of attention and money in the states that are more likely to swing one way or another. So the people in Florida or in Ohio-- so this is Ohio and Florida-- got a ton more attention, especially on a per person basis, than the people in Texas did.

Contents

Overview

United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2010[1]
Party Votes Percentage Seats +/–
Republican 327,986 67.55% 3
Democratic 137,524 28.32% 0
Independents 20,036 4.13% 0
Totals 485,546 100.00% 3

District 1

NE-districts-109-1.gif

In this solidly conservative[2] district based in eastern Nebraska, including some Omaha suburbs and the city of Lincoln, incumbent Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry ran for a fourth term. Congressman Fortenberry was opposed by Democrat Ivy Harper, a journalist and a legislative assistant to former Congressman John Cavanaugh. Harper did not stand much chance in this district, and Fortenberry was overwhelmingly re-elected.

Results

Nebraska's 1st congressional district election, 2010[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Jeff Fortenberry (inc.) 116,871 71.27
Democratic Ivy Harper 47,106 28.73
Total votes 163,977 100.00
Republican hold

District 2

NE-districts-109-2.gif

This conservative-leaning district[2] is solely based in metropolitan Omaha and has been represented by incumbent Republican Congressman Lee Terry since he was first elected in 1998. Congressman Terry faced a tough bid for re-election in 2008 from Democrat Jim Esch, but Esch declined to run for Congress a third time in 2010. Instead, State Senator Tom White emerged as the Democratic nominee. Though polls indicated the race to be close and Democrats saw the 2nd district as one of their few pick-up opportunities,[3] Congressman Terry was ultimately re-elected by a wide margin on election day.

Polling

Poll Source Dates Administered Lee Terry (R) Tom White (D) Undecided
Wiese Research Associates (Registered Voters) October 17–21, 2010 44% 39% 12%
Wiese Research Associates (Likely Voters) October 17–21, 2010 48% 40% 12%

Results

Nebraska's 2nd congressional district election, 2010[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Lee Terry (inc.) 93,840 60.81
Democratic Tom White 60,486 39.19
Total votes 154,326 100.00
Republican hold

District 3

NE-districts-109-3.gif

This congressional district, which constitutes nearly 85% of Nebraska's land mass, is one of the most conservative districts in the country.[2] Though incumbent Congressman Adrian Smith, a Republican, was elected to his first term in 2006 by a shockingly small ten-point margin of victory, he has enjoyed considerable luck since. This year, Congressman Smith faced Democratic nominee Rebekah Davis and independent candidate Dan Hill. As expected, Smith trounced both Davis and Hill to win a third term to Congress.

Results

Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election, 2010[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Adrian Smith (inc.) 117,275 70.12
Democratic Rebekah Davis 29,932 17.90
Independent Dan Hill 20,036 11.98
Total votes 167,243 100.00
Republican hold

References

External links

This page was last edited on 30 August 2019, at 13:27
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.