The case for electoral reform in Pa.

Guest Column by Senator Dominic Pileggi

Pennsylvania will have 20 electoral votes in the 2012 presidential election, 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, D.C.

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 U.S. 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 other 18 would be chosen based on the vote for president in each congressional district.

This proposal will better align Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes with the result of the popular vote in our state, empowering individual voters. Under the current scheme, far too many Pennsylvanians believe their vote for president is meaningless.

Changing to a district-based allocation method will increase the significance of each citizen’s vote because besides helping determine which presidential candidate is awarded the two statewide electoral votes, each voter will participate in choosing the winner in his or her congressional district.

Since I unveiled this proposal this month, it has generated much discussion. I welcome commentary for and against the idea, because a vigorous debate on important issues such as the Electoral College is essential to a healthy democracy. In order to continue this conversation, I asked the Senate’s State Government Committee to hold a public hearing, which is scheduled for Oct. 4.

However, many commentators, including several paid political consultants, have refused to engage in a debate on the merits. Instead, they have resorted to denigrating the motives of those who support this idea. The American Thinker has correctly labeled this approach “partisan fear-mongering disguised as political science.”

I have heard from Democrats who believe this will cost their candidate for president electoral votes in 2012. I have heard precisely the same argument — virtually word for word — from some Republicans. Hearing identical criticism from both ends of the political spectrum is proof of my position that this proposal would not favor either political party.

Other political operatives have claimed that Pennsylvania, a state with 12.7 million residents, will somehow be ignored by presidential campaigns if this proposal is adopted. This defies logic. Pennsylvania will be critical to choosing the president under any system.

However, every one of those arguments misses the most important point: Changing the method of selecting electors in Pennsylvania will give every voter in Pennsylvania a stronger voice in presidential elections. The focus should not be on how any political party or candidate might or might not be affected. It should not be on abstract concepts such as Pennsylvania’s “clout.”

We should focus on how we can strengthen the role of individual voters in determining who will be our president. Enacting a district-based system for choosing presidential electors is an easy-to-understand, common-sense way to achieve that objective.

Many have suggested that my plan would have merit if it is adopted nationwide. Of course, the governor and General Assembly can only make the change here in the commonwealth.

It might be that there is a better way to align electoral votes with the popular vote in our state. I am open to that possibility, and I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Senator Pileggi is the majority leader of the Pennsylvania Senate.