Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I think the Electoral college is a good way to vote for the president or vice president because i think without the Electoral college, we wouldn't have anyone to vote for the president or vice president. We have each candidate running for president in our state and it has his or her own group of electors. The electors are chosen by the candidate political party.

I agree that most state have a winner take all system because it awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. The 23rd Amendment of the constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College.

The word state refers to the District of Columbia. The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. We help choose our state's electors when we vote for president because when we vote for our candidate we are actually voting for our candidate electors.

I think the best laid defenses of the system are wrong because some voters might sometime vote for the wrong candidate and they might sometime get confused about the electors. After Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral college, he won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Over 60 percent of voters would perfer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. The disaster factor is the single best argument against the electoral college. I agree that most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters because of the winner take all system in each state. Candidate don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning,focusing only on the tight races in the swing states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidate at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina,and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad. I agree that the it's official that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best agruments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. The agruments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right. Abolish the electoral college.

I think the five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President was for its lack of democratic. The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a non democratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. I disagree the advocates of this postition are correct in arguing that the Electoral college method is ot democratic in a modern sense. It is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When we vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors because we're not actually voting for the president, we're just voting for the slate of electors. Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed. However it it entirely possibe that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections inn which no candidate receives a majority of the vote cast. I agree that they made the five reasons for retaining the Electoral College.

Score: 1