Haven't We Been Over This Electoral College Thing Before?

We've definitely spoken at length about why this whole complicated Electoral College deal is in fact a good thing, and in fact a necessary thing in order for states to receive equal representation, or at the very least a slight affirmative nod from national political candidates.

Despite my humble pleas, the Arkansas House voted to do away with the Electoral College.

Now with the vote up to the Senate, I thought I'd try it again. Let's summarize, shall we?

• The Electoral College was designed to make the Executive Branch appeal to the most broad constituency of all, namely, everyone in the United States.
• Without it, a politician only needs to get the most votes without necessarily appealing to that broader base.
• Smaller communities will get even less of a voice, as bigger cities equal more handshaking and baby kissing per square foot.

But apparently, you've heard all of this before and don't care, which is fine. There are plenty of arguments against it that hold merit, like the nation is becoming more of a singular community, and with the advent of the youtubes and the twitters and the like, politicians can cover that necessary ground to appeal to all.

And that's all well and good. But what really burns my grits is the fact that this, for some ungodly reason, become a partisan issue, when in actuality, this should be the most bipartisan issue ever, because it involves everyone regardless of political affiliation.

I get it. Al Gore lost the 2000 election with more popular votes in tow. George W. Bush turned out to be an ungood President. There's ire there, and I understand that.

But what if it had been the other way around? I'd still be arguing the same thing, that had Gore appealed to a broader base — as is the mandate for the representative faculties of the Executive Branch — and would've locked up more states, he should have won the Presidency. In doing so, he would have convinced more demographics, not just more people in the same demographic, and therefore could represent the diversities within the U.S. better. No?

A colleague likened it to FDR and his numerous re-elections. Afterward, Republicans were the ones who drove the term-limit stake through the heart of the Presidency. It's the same in this instance. It's not a Republican thing to like the Electoral College just because it benefited one Republican one time.

It's due in the Senate Committee on State Agencies & Governmental Affairs tomorrow morning, with Steve Faris, D-Malvern, Gilbert Baker, R-Conway, Steve Bryles, D-Blytheville, Bobby Glover, D-Carlisle, Kim "Not Kimberly" Hendren, R-Gravette, Randy Laverty, D-Jasper, Bill Pritchard, R-Elkins and Ed Wilkinson, D-Greenwood.

Faris and Pritchard are their respective parties Whips, meaning button men assigned to make sure that the party fence is well-intact. It'll be interesting to see if they indeed fling some partisan mud, although I have it on good authority that Faris is in fact all about the Electoral College. This might be a good opportunity to see a politicalooney toon moment, when Faris says he's for the Electoral College and Rabbit Season, while Pritchard will then immediately oppose him by wanting to do away with the Electoral College and Duck Season and thereby being harmlessly blasted in the face.

Either way, let's hope the Senate Committee thinks about their small constituencies in this case.

And if the National Popular Vote people leave anymore spam on my blog, I'm deleting it. Did you see it last time? Talk about annoying. I felt technologically violated.