Document text
Our View: Beware unintended consequences Friday May 26, 2017 at 12:01 AM The 73 million Americans who voted for someone other than Donald Trump for president — outnumbering Trump voters by more than 10 million — might understandably support the national movement to sidestep the Electoral College and award the top job in future elections to the winner of the popular vote. Oregon is on its way to joining that movement after the state House voted to do so along party lines. To abolish the Electoral College would require amending the U.S. Constitution — a daunting task. But it could be circumvented if enough states agree. Here's how: Individual states enact legislation pledging their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of how their state's electorate voted. If enough states sign on to what's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to total the magic number of 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, those states would determine the winner. That sounds good in theory, but it raises some interesting issues. In the 2016 election, for instance, Donald Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but won just enough votes in three key states to give him the electoral votes he needed. If Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had signed on to the Interstate Compact, those states would have awarded their Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton, even though their voters narrowly picked Trump. Other states where Trump won handily also would have been forced to deliver their electoral votes to Clinton, if their state had joined the compact. Then there is the likelihood that just enough states sign on to reach the 270 number, but the rest don't. Are their electoral votes irrelevant? In Oregon, where Clinton won easily, Democratic voters would have been happy to have the Interstate Compact in place. But in some future election, the result could conceivably be reversed, and the candidate chosen by Oregon voters could narrowly lose the popular vote but still get all seven of Oregon's electoral votes. Supporters of the Interstate Compact argue that the current system prompts candidates to concentrate their campaigning in swing states, ignoring states they consider safe and those where they have little support. But there is no guarantee that would change appreciably under the Compact system. In fact, candidates would be more likely to spend most of their time and money in big cities and urban states with large concentrations of voters. It was Clinton's overwhelming wins in the urban parts of California and New York that gave her the bulk of her popular vote margin. The Oregon House has approved the Interstate Compact three times before, only to have it blocked by Senate President Peter Courtney. This year, he says he will allow a Senate vote if the matter is referred to the voters. That still would leave the national effort little more than 60 percent of the way toward its goal. If Oregon voters are given a say, they should be sure it's what they want before voting yes.