Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The United States has ways of being civilaized, and thats by electing leaders. Those leaders that take role of the responsiblitiy are President. Presidents need candidates to vote for them. The only way the President will get elected is by the Electoral College or by popular vote. Although both ways are effective, only one way is the best. The U.S should stick with the Electoral College because its a game changer and trust worthy.

To start off the Electoral College is a game changer for Election Day. In the article " In Defenese of the Electoral College" the author states a good claim. Richard states " the reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote". From this quote Richard points out the even when a candidate has a good amount of  popular vote it all comes down to the Electoral College. The reason is the Electoral College is part of the candidate's team, whether its Democrat or Republican. In the article from Richard he gave an example, " Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney". In this peice of information Richard clearly states on how the Electoral College is stronger then the popular votes. Now in the article "the indfensible Electoral College" which was written by Bradford has a different claim. Bradford states " because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning". From this Bradford wants to express that the Electoral College is not fair to voters, and that it has cheesy methods. But even thought Bradfort disagrees with the method, Bradfort still stated the obvious. In the article Plumer states " taken shortly after Al Gore-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college-won the popular vote but lost the presidency". Although Plumer disagree with the electoral college, Bradford still notices on how the electoral college makes a huge difference. Basically the Electoral College is just a big game chnager on Election Day.

Futhermore the Electoral College is just a trust worthy method to use. Also it was like the first method to be used. In the first source "What is the Electoral College", the author gives some great information. The office states " the electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their resposibilities are". In this statement the Office is stating on how whichever party a person might be in, the electoral college will come through. The reason is because each state has an Electoral college and those states are in differnet parties. If the state that a person might live in is Democrat then the electoral college will go for that party, and same thing for the Republican party. From the other side of Bradford again wants a comeback. In his article Bradford states "in the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refuesd to vote for their party's candidate". Now no one would know if this is true but the electors might have their reasons. But Richard A. Posner comes back and states "no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. In this quote its supports the fact that the electors do choose who they please. Plus this makes it fair because candidates wont be getting votes all over the places. Also the electoral college will be trust wirthy because the college follows the majority of the people's vote, and then makes a vaild decision. So the electoral college just gives people want they want from trust.

All in all the Electoral College is just the better method of voting. The Electoral College will give what the people want. Also the electoral college  represents the states votes. The reason is because electoral colleges are game changers and a trust worthy method. Certainly it wll be easier to choose a president and break ties.

Score: 5