Dem
51
GOP
49
Actually, it is the other way around, but it sounds better this way. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate their electoral votes with one per congressional district and two statewide. Joe Biden won one electoral vote in Nebraska in 2020, the Omaha-based NE-02. Nebraska Republicans thought they could pull a fast one on Democrats by changing the law to allocate all their electoral votes to the statewide winner, thus (potentially) costing Joe Biden one electoral vote. In some scenarios, that could be crucial. Take that, Biden! What are you going to do about it?
Not so fast, Nebraska. The Democrats hold the trifecta in Maine, the other state with the split EVs. Maine House Majority Leader Maureen Terry (D) has now said that if Nebraska switches to winner-take-all, Maine will too, thus depriving Trump of the one EV he could get in rural ME-02, which covers 80% of the state. That would cancel out Nebraska's move. Now that Maine has an answer to "What are you going to do about it?," Nebraska is much less likely to change the law.
Actually, allocating electoral votes in all states as Maine and Nebraska do would be better than the current scheme, although not as good as eliminating the Electoral College altogether (which would require a constitutional amendment). Dozens of blue states have one or more red districts and dozens of red states have one or more blue districts. If every state switched to the Maine/Nebraska plan, dozens of states would suddenly be competitive. Here is a list of the number of competitive blue and red districts per state, based on the PVI of the district. Any district between D+5 and R+5 inclusive is considered to be competitive here. States with no competitive districts are not listed:
| State | # D+1 to D+5 districts | # R+1 to R+5 districts | # EVEN districts |
| Arizona | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| California | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| Colorado | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Connecticut | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Georgia | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Kansas | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Maryland | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Nevada | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| New Jersey | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| North Carolina | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Ohio | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Oregon | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Rhode Island | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Virginia | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Washington | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 47 | 33 | 7 |
We'll save you the job of counting, but in this model, 28 states are suddenly at least somewhat competitive because there are one or more districts that are worth fighting over. So instead of about 7 states that anyone cares about, 28 states would become battlegrounds because there were electoral votes to be had there. Of course, any switch to the Maine/Nebraska plan would have to be nationwide. It would be foolish for California to switch unless Texas and Florida did too, and vice-versa. Getting from here to there would be tough since Congress probably has no authority to tell the states how to divvy up their electoral votes. What might work is an interstate compact that says the state will switch to the new plan as soon as all 50 states have ratified it. That way, Texas could not say to California "you go first" and then renege after California does so. The Interstate Popular Vote Compact works this way. (V)