Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The Electoral Collge is a process where electors vote for President and Vice President, and count the number of electoral votes by Congress. Many people are debating whether or not keep the Electoral College or change it to a election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Although the Electoral College has been taking place for many years now, it can be a disaster factor. I believe that the Electoral College should be abolished and changed to a election by popular vote for the president of the United States because it will make the election fair, the chance of there being a tie is much less, and it will be rather rational as oposed to the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is not fair and it is irrational. Voters don't vote directly to the president they want. According to Source 1: "What is the Electoral College?" voters actually voting for their candidate's electors. Majority of the states have a "winner- take- all" system in which electors are awarded to the winning candidate. Voters don't get to chose who exactly they want, it's based upon which elector they chose that really determines who will win the presidential election. The voters can't always control what the elector they chose does with what thy're decision was on who they wanted to win the election, and they just as well get confused and sometimes possibly make the wrong choice. Changing it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States is fair for anyone who votes. There is less chance of getting confused and less chance of picking the wrong elector. Even though others may argue that each party selects trusted electors to vote for the patry's nominees, it's still not fair to those who get confused and end up picking the wrong elector which leads to wrong vote towards the presidential election.

The chances of it turning out to be a tie aren't low. Accoring to Source 2: "The Indefensible Electoral Colleg: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong", a tie has happened before. States have sent two states of electors to Congress. Although it happened long ago, it doesn't mean that it won't occur anytime again. Abolishing the Electoral College can give a less chance for that to occur. Since staes have the "winner- take- all" system, the candidates don't even spend time or focus on the states that thye know they have no chance in winning in. According to source 2, there were seventeen states who didn't even get to see the election at all, and some votes didn't even get to see the ad of the campaign.

The presidential election will become rational to many people. There may be cons to abolishing the Electoral College but there are more pros to it rather than cons. It would make the presidential election fair and easier for the voters voting for the candidates. People may argue that it's best to keep the Electoral College because some states may not have enough people voting for the candidates so it wouldn't be possible to directly vote for the president of the United States but there are more states who do have the chance to chose and make a direct decision rather than picking an elector who may or may not go agaisnt the party that had picked them and then they can end up chosing who they, the electors want instead of what the voter really wanted and intended. Many people may be able to agree that it is best to abolish the Electoral College instead of keeping it. The electors are picked mostly based upon the state.

Abolishing the Electoral College is the fair, rational, and beneficial thing to do. Keeping the Electoral College won't benefit the presidential election in any way possible. It's better to keep the election fair than otherwise. Voters should be able to know exaclty who they're picking without any confusion or without accidently picking the wrong person. People shouldn't need to be confused about who they're picking and they shouldn't have to posibly worry at the fact that the elector they voted for might defy the will of the voters and they would pick who they, the voters feel like picking rather than picking who the voters vote was actually intended for in the first place. There are risks to basically putting the voters vote in someone elses hands and the voters vote can easily be changed by one of the electors that the party had picked because they trusted that person. If the presidential election was about who you can pick directly, then it would be much easier and the voters will know that the presidential election was fair and nothing was done to change who they voted for in the beginning.

Score: 5