Electoral College Reform Legislation
How long have we had this system?
Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787.
That's a long time. Why change it now?
State Senator Dominic Pileggi, who also happens to be the Senate’s Majority Leader, thinks Pennsylvania’s Electoral College system isn’t fair to all of the state’s voters.
How does the Electoral College work in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania has what’s called a “winner-take-all” system. The presidential candidate who receives the majority of votes across Pennsylvania wins all 20 electoral votes.
What would Pileggi's plan do?
Pileggi’s plan – which is called the Congressional District Plan (CDP) – breaks votes down by Congressional district. A presidential candidate would receive one electoral vote for each Congressional district where that candidate won the popular vote. On top of that, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote statewide would get two extra electoral votes.
What's good about the CDP?
CDP advocates say that the winner-take-all process doesn’t give any credit to people who vote for the losing candidate. In addition, cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with lots of voters can overwhelm smaller towns across the state. This ends up discouraging people from voting. Pileggi says that changing to the CDP would more accurately reflect the real wishes of Pennsylvanians and keep elections relevant here.
Give me an example of how this would play out.
Let’s take the 2008 presidential election. Barak Obama won the popular vote statewide, so in Pennsylvania’s winner-take-all system, he received all then-21 electoral votes and John McCain got none. If the CDP had been in place, here’s what would have happened: Since Obama won 9 Congressional districts and McCain won 10, Obama would have received 11 electoral votes (9 for each district he won plus 2 more for winning the statewide vote) and McCain would have received 10.
https://www.seventy.org/publications/2011/...
Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787.
That's a long time. Why change it now?
State Senator Dominic Pileggi, who also happens to be the Senate’s Majority Leader, thinks Pennsylvania’s Electoral College system isn’t fair to all of the state’s voters.
How does the Electoral College work in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania has what’s called a “winner-take-all” system. The presidential candidate who receives the majority of votes across Pennsylvania wins all 20 electoral votes.
What would Pileggi's plan do?
Pileggi’s plan – which is called the Congressional District Plan (CDP) – breaks votes down by Congressional district. A presidential candidate would receive one electoral vote for each Congressional district where that candidate won the popular vote. On top of that, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote statewide would get two extra electoral votes.
What's good about the CDP?
CDP advocates say that the winner-take-all process doesn’t give any credit to people who vote for the losing candidate. In addition, cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with lots of voters can overwhelm smaller towns across the state. This ends up discouraging people from voting. Pileggi says that changing to the CDP would more accurately reflect the real wishes of Pennsylvanians and keep elections relevant here.
Give me an example of how this would play out.
Let’s take the 2008 presidential election. Barak Obama won the popular vote statewide, so in Pennsylvania’s winner-take-all system, he received all then-21 electoral votes and John McCain got none. If the CDP had been in place, here’s what would have happened: Since Obama won 9 Congressional districts and McCain won 10, Obama would have received 11 electoral votes (9 for each district he won plus 2 more for winning the statewide vote) and McCain would have received 10.
https://www.seventy.org/publications/2011/...
An Electoral College Reform Act ballot initiative (10-0024) was approved for circulation in California with a circulation deadline of July 5, 2011.[1]
Its sponsors did not submit any signatures to election officials by the deadline.
The Attorney General of California's office gave it a ballot title and summary on February 2, 2011.
The measure would have required 504,760 signatures to qualify for the state's 2012 ballot as an initiated state statute.[2]
If the Electoral College Reform Act had qualified for the ballot and been approved by the state's voters, it would have changed the way California allocates its presidential Electoral College votes. Currently, the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all 55 of California's electoral college votes. The winner-take-all system would be replaced with one that awards 53 of the state’s 55 electoral votes individually to whichever presidential candidate gets the most votes in each congressional district.
The formal letter requesting a title and summary for the proposed initiative was signed by Ted Costa, and was received by the Attorney General of California's office on December 7, 2010. The working title of the proposed amendment was the "Electoral College Reform Act."
Proposed initiative 10-0024 would have amended the California Elections Code.
An initiative with the same objective, the California Presidential Electoral College Reform Initiative, was proposed, but ultimately did not qualify for, the state's June 2008 ballot.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Elector...