Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I agree that changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States would be a better choice than to continue Electoral College. You may ask yourself why. Well, it's not fair to have to pick a random person to do something you should be the one doing. It's like saying you pick your neighbor to clean your house. Your house is still being cleaned, but not by you, instead, a random person you don't even know. Thus, continueing Electoral College is the same because in this case, the elector you pick and don't even know is going to make choices that at the end of the day you might not even agree on and you can't do nothing about it at that point.

During Elecoral College voters get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. This means, there is too many names on the list that you most likely have never even heard in your life, therefore leading you to voting for the wrong candidate. Some electors aren't even faithful, instead of going for their party's candidate, they rather decide voting for whomever they please. Most likely leading to alot of conflict because the candidate is not even on their party and the voters would hate to have to follow someone else's rules, yet again, can't do nothing about it.

Voters would always love to control whom their electors vote for, but this will never happen with Electoral College. The whole point to me for the Electoral College is so that the people voting for the electors won't have any power against anything. So that the government continues to have power over the people. That can be great at some point, but sooner or later will cause confict because some people don't always agree with what the government has to say or do. Therefore, changing to election by popular vote for president of U.S would be much better than to continue Electoral College.

On the article,

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

". States that "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 didn't get to see a single campaign ad." Now right there is a perfect example of electors being "unfair". Electors want people to keep voting for them so that they can pick the candidates, yet, they always skip the part of showing who the candidates are. There is no why people will randomly guess how their candidates will end up being if they never even hear a few words from them.

In conclusion, I strongly believe changing to election by popular vote for president of U.S is a wiser decision than to continue Electoral College because it'll be fair to the people who are voting. People will start to get together to try and get to know the candidate, and most likely agree more to the idea than anything else. Mean while, Electoral College is a very unfair system because they have no idea who the elector is going to pick as candidate, and if they pick someone who they don't even know at the end of the day they will be stuck with a total stranger.

Score: 4