Electoral College? Is that a technical school or somthin'?

You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people 'round these parts who can give you a clear cut definition of what the Electoral College is, and it's only once in a blue moon — like the year 2000 — when the E.C. actually does anything worth mentioning.

But when it is noteworthy, get out of the way because mass hysteria and rioting are about to ensue.

People are all riled up about it now that a legislative committee in Arkansas has endorsed a bill to do away with the pesky Electoral College once and for all, joining the ranks of legislative powerhouses Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Old Jersey and last but not least, Hawaii (!!!) who have passed similar bills.

The fuss is that people think that their vote is watered-down or doesn't count for as much, just because their vote seems to evaporate if — gasp! — their candidate doesn't win. It might appear to water down and somewhat encumber the democratic the process a little, but it is a necessary insular.

I'm reminded of a quote I heard from my friend and yours John Brummett, who was quoting Benjamin Franklin. "Democracy is akin to two wolves and a sheep sitting down at a table to discuss what's for dinner," or something close to that. This means that direct democracy doesn't adequately represent the interests of all of the parties involved, namely the minority.

The Electoral College doesn't offer that either, but it's at least closer than direct democracy. What we live in is a Democratic Republic. We elect representatives that cater to our specific constituent needs rather than just let the government en masse deal with our focused nit-picking.

We have three whole levels of representation — a bicameral legislature with a House and Senate, and then an executive branch with a president — all with different constituency populations and term-lengths and limits to ensure that your very needs are heard and guarded with the utmost care.

Now this Electoral College was put in place to safe guard that representation, although it's a bit more difficult to see in this ever-shrinking community that we live in called the United States. Surely one can recognize that there are larger cities and smaller cities within bigger states and smaller states. There are very different needs for these different geographic regions of population.

Maybe a large city like New Orleans is all about raising taxes to fund levies, while a small city in Montana wants to lower taxes so people will have more money to purchase firewood to keep warm. Different constituencies, different needs from their government. I'm sure you can think of better examples.

The founders were rightly concerned that the race for the Presidency could be skewed by a candidate focusing on one demographic over another by focusing on larger populations; hey, more hands to shake with less ground to cover. The Electoral College attempts to ensure that some of the hands in some of the smaller states at least get a fair shake. The needs of New York or Los Angeles aren't the same as, say, Goose Knuckle, Mississippi, or any other remote and odd-named locale in the middle of the country.

The Electoral College is there to make sure that the trailer-dweller from rural Arkansas' voice can be heard through six votes from the College rather than hope that the Presidential candidate gets to his issue that could sway his single vote out of a billion.

Proponents of the elimination of the College make two pretty good points. One is that the globalization of the country has made the need to physically be on the ground in every state less of an imperative, that everyone's voice can be heard from the youtubes or the blogosphere or whatever the next communication fad will be.

They also argue that it doesn't matter, their voice is still insignificant. In 2008, Obama never set foot in Arkansas, or much anywhere else in the deep South, knowing it was long gone. In every election down the home stretch, certain states, like Pennsylvania or Ohio in 2008, are visited more frequently as battleground states.

Doing away with the Electoral College won't grant that these people will be better represented, just that their vote will be one of now hundreds of millions rather than just a couple million, as is the case in Arkansas. Oh yeah, that should help get your voice heard. Just increase the pool by a couple hundred million.

Those against the Electoral College also hang their hat on the 2000 election, where Gore won the popular vote (like in LA and NYC) and Bush won the electoral vote (more states like Bush than Gore).

Person to person, Gore should've won. But constituency to constituency, demographic need to demographic need? Bush won. Thinking about it in that context — and neglecting the...uh...unfavoribility of Dubya — makes the denial of direct democracy seem less treasonous and more American than initial instinct would lead one to believe.

People fear what they don't understand and unfortunately no one seems to grasp the benefits of the Electoral College. If it's gone, look for everything between LA and New York to have a tremendous drop in voting value.