Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Electoral Voters

Citizens of the U.S. have been voting for their presidents ever since George Washington was elected. They vote because they want their voices and opinions to be heard. So they can provide ways to make their lives better. But the truth of the matter is, we don't make the decisions. The Electoral College does. They should change the election to go by popular vote of the United States. Reason being is because what's the point of voting if they won't listen and they only hand pick a few people out of the millions of others. But keeping the College would make it easier to have votes counted.

Initially, the point of voting is to be heard and to have things your way for once, but if it's falling on deaf ears, then why bother? For example, in 'The Indefensible Electoral College' writer Bradford Plumer states that, "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president." Okay lets say someone wanted to vote for the Republican, and they vote for one of the electors who pledge themselves to the Republican. We can't rely on a person's word. What if they change their mind and vote for the other? How can natural citizens know to put their faith into a random stanger. Clearly, the voter does not get a say in the matter.

Furthermore, the millions of people who vote are reduced to a small amout of people. "The Electoral College consists of five hundred thirty eight electors," and "Two hundred seventy is needed to decide who's president." - The Office of the Federal Register. So states like New York and Nebraska only have three to six people voting since they are small. While on the other hand, California, Texas, and Florida have about thirty to sixty. And with the civilians living there, it's still not enough. Honestly, it wouldn't even matter if they voted.

On the other hand, the smaller amount of people, the quicker the U.S can get a president. In paragraph 4 of 'In defense of the electoral college' it's replied that, "A tie is possible... but it is highly unlikely." The presidential vote in 2012 may have not been a landslide ,but at least it wasn't a tie. The small amount made it a lot easier to count the votes. And the majority of voters still got who they wanted ,so it wasn't all terrible. The electoral college hasn't all been bad.

The Electoral College has more cons than it has pros. A citizen's voice must be heard and that won't happen if only few people are heard. But votes can be counted faster if there's only a tiny amount.

Score: 4