Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The Electoral College was established in the Constitution by the founding fathers. "The Electoral College process consists of the selection of electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for president and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress" is stated in source 1. This is process has been around for decades, but things have changed. This process does not fit with what is happening in the present and is outdated. The election should be by popular vote.

There is a disaster factor.  According to "Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong", it's says that the state legislatures are responsible for picking electors. The thing is that those electors can betray the trust which has happened before. You do not want to risk having someone defy the will of the people. Some people may argue that the states know what they are doing and are cautious on who to pick, but in the past the electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate. You do not want to put this in hands of someone who will not help you and the other people on such an important event like voting.

When you vote, there is a slight possibility of a tie occuring. If this were to happen, the state delegations would vote on which president. Each state will cast one vote, which is not fair because of the amount of representives in different states. "...the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters" is stated in source 2. Some people may say that the bigger states are helpful with voting because the Electoral College will balance out what the large states loss by the population votes. This still isn't fair because this is saying that the smaller states with less representatives do not have much say in the voting and this will turn off potential voters.

Some presidents may have a stronger appeal to some states then others. It may have to do with where the president is from (North, South). This goes back to how the bigger states have more power. "...such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states," is stated in source 3. This means that the bigger states in the South will be known for all voting Romney since that is where he is the strongest and well liked. There may be voters in the South that were more for Obama. Smaller states may hate what Romney is doing and vote for Obama, but they do not have as much power as the bigger states. This is like the winner takes it all, they may know that they have no chance in winning. (Obama did end up winning and was titled as the 44th President of the United States. To others, they may say that each persons vote does count but it doesn't seem like it. The voters in the South didn't see any campaign ad by Romney which was not fair because he was not concerned about them not voting for him.

The Electoral College is not a fair process. It worked in the past, but not anymore. Using the popular vote process is more fair for all of the people. They have more say and there votes feel more important. This will encourage potential voters to vote and to become more involved with the political events. We need to encourage potential voters because one day, when they become older, they will be the voters of our country.

Score: 5