Sen. Pileggi: Proposal would fairly allocate Electoral College votes

In 2012, Pennsylvania will have 20 electoral votes, one for each of the 18 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the two U.S. senators who represent our state in Washington.

Under current law, Pennsylvania would award all of these electoral votes for president to the winner of the statewide vote. This winner-takes-all approach does not allow the Electoral College vote to accurately reflect the popular vote of the citizens in our state.

The Constitution leaves the method of allocating electoral votes up to each state to decide.

My proposal to more fairly allocate Pennsylvania's votes in the Electoral College is simple: Two presidential electors would be chosen based on the statewide vote. The 18 others would be chosen based on the vote for president in each congressional district.

Over the years, I've heard from far too many Pennsylvanians who believe their vote for president is meaningless under our current Electoral College system. Under this new plan, each citizen's vote for president will increase in significance.

Some critics have focused not on the voters, but rather on what this change would mean for Pennsylvania's "clout" or its "role on the national stage" in presidential elections. This misses the point. Our focus should be on how we can best ensure that every Pennsylvanian's vote for president matters. Our current system does not accomplish that goal.

This proposal would not favor either political party. Some Republicans who believe the GOP nominee will win Pennsylvania in 2012 will not be happy with it. The same is true for some Democrats who believe President Obama will again win Pennsylvania.

But that's not the point. Enacting a district-based system for choosing presidential electors is an easy-to-understand, commonsense way to achieve what should be the objective for everyone interested in democracy: strengthening the role of individual voters.

Already, editorials from both sides of Pennsylvania have praised the proposal. The Bucks County Courier Times said "there's no doubt" it would "make the system fairer and more representative." It said this plan should be adopted because "it's simply the right thing to do."

The Courier Times also correctly pointed out that a winner-takes-all system "does not accurately reflect voters' wishes. Millions and millions of votes are not awarded to the candidate voters chose. Their votes are simply disregarded."

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review pointed out that my proposal "would better represent how Pennsylvanians vote for president."

Even former Gov. Edward G. Rendell grudgingly admits that "it's not a bad idea in concept." He would prefer to see it implemented across the nation simultaneously, rather than in a single state - but of course the General Assembly and the governor can adopt this proposal only in Pennsylvania.

A full and vigorous debate on important issues such as this is always healthy. I have asked the Senate State Government Committee to hold a public hearing so that all sides can be heard before any vote takes place. I look forward to continuing this conversation.