Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The Electoral College is a process that has been used for presidential elections since the Founding Fathers established it in the Consitution. This system does not necessary give the voters a direct vote, but rather a vote for a slate of electors that vote for them. The voters intrust that their elected slate will vote for their favored presidential canidate. It brings up the argument whether this system of voting should be changed or kept. The Electoral College has some of its good points, but over all, it needs to be changed. Voters need a direct say in their vote, and this system turns off the interest of potiential voters.

The voters of the United states should have the ability to directly vote for who they want as President. After all, the people are what make up the country and should have say. "It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational," says Bradford Plumer in

The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong .

This means that the Electoral College is unfair to the people because the slate they vote for might not even vote for their canidate. Also, in the same article, Plumer states, "Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people." This means that there is a chance that the electors could vote for whoever they please.

This system of voting does not give the voters a direct say as to who they want, but also turns off the interest of voters who should be voting for their country. "Because of the winner-takes-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know that have no chance of winning..." as said by Plumer. People within those states would have no motivation to vote for their president because their potienial president did not come to their state to convince them to vote. The canidates are only focused on getting majority of the electoral votes, and not who the people really want. "During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets ddin't get to see a single campaign ad," Plumer had stated. These states lack any information about the potiential ruler of their country just because the canidates are focused on the states that will help them win.

Although "each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for a party's nominee," as said by Richard A. Posner in

In Defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , the possibility of having a winner based on electoral vote and not popular vote is very much possible. For instance, the 2000 election, Gore had won popular vote but due to the electoral vote, Bush had won the election. Gore won the vote for the most popular all over the nation, but because the electoral college had a majority of Bush, it was like the nation's actual vote did not matter.

The Electoral College is unfair to the people because they do not get a direct say for who they want, and the canidates only focus on states that will help them win based on electoral vote. The people need a say exactly who they want and should not depend on others to do the vote for them. Canidates should not only appeal to states that would make them win, but also to other states so the whole nation knows exactly who might be ruling over their country.

Score: 4