It's the debate that comes to the forefront every four years.

"Sometimes you get the popular vote and Electoral College not tells what it should do," said Marge Oberly, of Northampton, Northampton Co.

Think Bush-Gore in 2000.

The Electoral College stems from our founding fathers' fears of an uneducated public, who would only vote for their "favorite son" from their own state.

"At this point, we know what we are doing. I think voters are informed through the media and things like, we can make educated and the right decisions," said Devon O'Connor, a student at Lehigh University in Bethlehem.

Pa. Sen. Dominic Pileggi, a Republican, said he wants to change the state's winner-take-all system. Instead, using congressional districts to distribute electoral votes proportionally, with two extra votes to the state's overall winner.

"A split-state vote in any proportion that could come out of this plan would be benefit Republicans and the Republican Party," said Chris Borick, a political pundit.

President Obama won Pennsylvania with 52 percent of the popular vote and received all 20 electoral votes.

Under Pileggi's plan, Obama would have won 12 votes, Romney eight. The senator has said it's a better representation of how the state votes. Democrats, however, call it sour grapes and a way to rig future elections.

Pileggi has pledged to do this before, but his previous plan penned last year never made it out of committee.

Borick called the electoral system antiquated but said if Pennsylvania, a typically blue state, changes its plan and red states like Texas don't, it's not a fair national election.

"Doing by a state-by-state creates an unequal playing field and does bring a lot of party politics into the system," he said.

Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that don't do a winner-take-all system.