Democrats counter that the proposed change is not only blatantly political - designed to give GOP candidates the edge - but also bad for Pennsylvania, as it will diminish the state's role in deciding who occupies the White House.
To that, Pileggi says: "This concept about clout and perceived importance is secondary to making sure that individual voters have a say in who the president is."
He added: "Everyone agrees Pennsylvania is one of the more diverse states in the union, and that diversity is not reflected in the current winner-takes-all sytsem."
The way it works now, the presidential and vice-presidential slate that wins the state gets all of the electoral votes.
In 2012, after redistricting, Pennsylvania will have 20 electoral votes and 18 congressional districts. Under Pileggi's proposal, each of the districts would elect one presidential elector; the other two would be apportioned on the basis of the popular vote.
Only two other states allocate electoral votes by congressional district, Maine and Nebraska.
Pileggi and other GOP leaders in the legislature, all of whom are expressing support for the effort, argue the proposed new system will more closely reflect the popular will of voters.
Critics call that crazy talk. They note that Pennsylvania would lose influence relative to other swing states that stay with a winner-take-all system.
"It's not a bad idea in concept, if all 50 states adopted it at the same time, but for Pennsylvania to do it by itself would be a disaster," said former Gov. Ed Rendell, the one-time chair of the Democratic National Committee. "Right now, in a general election, Pennsylvania is one of three states that basically decides the election."
