HARRISBURG - In an effort to take part in what his office said is an on-going national conversation about the Electoral College, Pennsylvania state senator and Republican Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi has introduced a bill that would change how Pennsylvania allocates its electoral votes.
Like most states, Pennsylvania currently gives all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the state.
Senate Bill 538 would automatically give the winner of the state-wide popular vote 2 of the state's electoral votes, and distribute the rest based on a percentage of votes won by each candidate. Under that system, President Obama would have received 12 of Pennsylvania's Electoral Votes, while Mitt Romney would have received 8.
Similar changes have been floated in other states by both parties, but Penn State Altoona political science Professor Nicholas Pyeatt is doubtful the bill will pass.
"The biggest reason it won't go anywhere is the simple fact that it will make Pennsylvania less important," he said. "Some candidates might say, 'Why don't I just focus more efforts in a state that's winner take all?'"
The proposed change has been criticized by the NAACP and Democratic state senators as an attempt to undermine Latino and African American voters.
Democratic Senator Vincent Hughes (D) addressed the proposed changes at a news conference.
"Instead of focusing on the issues Pennsylvanians care about, they're [Republicans] more interested in rigging the next election in their favor with a scheme to change how Pennsylvania allocates its electoral college votes," he said.
The bill has 12 Republican cosponsors.
Sen. Pileggi's office told WTAJ that the bill is not a priority for Pileggi, and that he's more focused on the state's budget and pension reforms.
"There's an ongoing national discussion about whether or not the Electoral College should be changed," Pileggi's office said in a statement. "The idea of allocating electors with a proportional distribution is one that we believe has merit and should be part of that discussion."
Democrats have won Pennsylvania in every presidential election since 1992.
In the most recent presidential election, both parties poured enormous resources into the Pennsylvania with hopes of winning its 20 electoral votes.
Like most states, Pennsylvania currently gives all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the state.
Senate Bill 538 would automatically give the winner of the state-wide popular vote 2 of the state's electoral votes, and distribute the rest based on a percentage of votes won by each candidate. Under that system, President Obama would have received 12 of Pennsylvania's Electoral Votes, while Mitt Romney would have received 8.
Similar changes have been floated in other states by both parties, but Penn State Altoona political science Professor Nicholas Pyeatt is doubtful the bill will pass.
"The biggest reason it won't go anywhere is the simple fact that it will make Pennsylvania less important," he said. "Some candidates might say, 'Why don't I just focus more efforts in a state that's winner take all?'"
The proposed change has been criticized by the NAACP and Democratic state senators as an attempt to undermine Latino and African American voters.
Democratic Senator Vincent Hughes (D) addressed the proposed changes at a news conference.
"Instead of focusing on the issues Pennsylvanians care about, they're [Republicans] more interested in rigging the next election in their favor with a scheme to change how Pennsylvania allocates its electoral college votes," he said.
The bill has 12 Republican cosponsors.
Sen. Pileggi's office told WTAJ that the bill is not a priority for Pileggi, and that he's more focused on the state's budget and pension reforms.
"There's an ongoing national discussion about whether or not the Electoral College should be changed," Pileggi's office said in a statement. "The idea of allocating electors with a proportional distribution is one that we believe has merit and should be part of that discussion."
Democrats have won Pennsylvania in every presidential election since 1992.
In the most recent presidential election, both parties poured enormous resources into the Pennsylvania with hopes of winning its 20 electoral votes.
Comments
One of the counter-intuitive aspects of the whole-number proportional approach (which retains the Electoral College and the office of presidential elector) would result in most states being ignored in presidential elections. There would be fewer battleground states under this system than under the current system.
Campaigning is rarely capable of shifting more than 8% of the vote during a typical presidential campaign. If one considers an average-sized state (i.e., a state with 11 electoral votes), one electoral vote would correspond to 9% of the popular vote in the state. In smaller states, one electoral vote would correspond to an even larger percentage of the popular vote in the state. In a state of median size (i.e., seven electoral votes), one electoral vote would correspond to 14% of the popular vote in the state. In the case of the seven states with three electoral votes, one electoral vote would correspond to 33% of the popular vote.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation%u2019s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269%u2013269 in the Electoral College, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress. Given the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2001, the whole-number proportional approach would have resulted in the election of the second-place presidential candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Ooty C.
March 5, 2013 at 10:19 am
In the 2012 presidential election, Pennsylvania was no longer a battleground state and did not receive enormous resources.
Ooty C.
March 5, 2013 at 10:18 am
Obvious partisan machinations like these should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.
A survey of Pennsylvania voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes%u2013 enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state%u2019s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO %u2013 68%, FL %u2013 78%, IA 75%, MI %u2013 73%, MO %u2013 70%, NH %u2013 69%, NV %u2013 72%, NM%u2013 76%, NC %u2013 74%, OH %u2013 70%, PA %u2013 78%, VA %u2013 74%, and WI %u2013 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK %u2013 70%, DC %u2013 76%, DE %u2013 75%, ID %u2013 77%, ME %u2013 77%, MT %u2013 72%, NE 74%, NH %u2013 69%, NV %u2013 72%, NM %u2013 76%, OK %u2013 81%, RI %u2013 74%, SD %u2013 71%, UT %u2013 70%, VT %u2013 75%, WV %u2013 81%, and WY %u2013 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR %u2013 80%, KY- 80%, MS %u2013 77%, MO %u2013 70%, NC %u2013 74%, OK %u2013 81%, SC %u2013 71%, TN %u2013 83%, VA %u2013 74%, and WV %u2013 81%; and in other states polled: AZ %u2013 67%, CA %u2013 70%, CT %u2013 74%, MA %u2013 73%, MN %u2013 75%, NY %u2013 79%, OR %u2013 76%, and WA %u2013 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes %u2013 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Ooty C.
March 5, 2013 at 10:13 am
If it has anything to do with common sense, politicians will explode in total outrage... what, ask us to be sensible? How arrogant of you?
Steve K.
March 4, 2013 at 9:35 am
