Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Who are voters voting for? Whoever they are voting for, it certainly isn't the president. The Electoral College has the potential to cause a nationwide catastrophe, which is why changing the election to popular vote is the best way. The Electoral College should be abolished because of the "disaster factor", prospect of a tie, and the fact that more citizens vote in the presidential election compared to the electoral election.

The disaster factor is exactly what it sounds like: a disaster. This "disaster" is described as the event where electors defy the people they are representing. For example, this happened in the 2000 presidential vote when Al Gore won the public vote, but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush. This means that the electors voted by the people of their state changed their minds about which president they were voting for. This resulted in the opposing vote turn-outs in the 2000 presidential election. As said in Source 2, "In the same vein, 'faithless' electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please." Although some people may argue that it is very rare for something like this to happen, the fact that there is a chance that it could is overwhelming. Clearly, against even the smallest odds, the Electoral College can cause a catastrophe.

A tie would cause a real predicament in a presidential election. In the case of a tie, the choice is given to the House of Representatives. This means that there is an unequal amount of electoral voters. Source 2 says, "Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people." Once again, the Electoral College has faulted; a simple tie could throw the whole election off. Why would the vote be passed on to the House if there is already a popular vote? If there is already another vote in place and the votes are counted, why not just put those votes to use? Obviously, if a tie could mess up a national vote, then it's time to change our ways.

Although each state decides its electors, how many people are actually voting for the electors? According to Source 3, about one-half of the eligible American population voted in 2012's presidential election. If only half of the population is voting for a nationwide presidential election, how many people are going to vote for a small, in-state election? It isn't clear enough that although the presidential election is bigger, the electoral election is much more important. However, if we just had a popular vote instead of the Electoral College, everyone would vote in the presidential election because everyone already knows the importance of the presidential election. Yet, people aren't aware enough of the importance of the electoral vote and although the government has tried to stress the importance of voting it, nobody seems to catch on. It is evident that a large percentage of the population does not understand the need to vote in the electoral election. People simply do not understand that this election determines the outcome of the presidential election, which is why it shouldn't even exist.

The Electoral College is regarded as a non-democratic method of selecting a president. It is true hypocracy and should be replaced because of the "disaster factor", prospect of a tie, and the fact that more citizens vote in the presidential election compared to the electoral election. The presidential election isn't a nationwide election; it is an election that takes place in a little room where 538 electors decide the political fate for millions of people living in the United States of America.

Score: 5