Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
As we should know, "the Electoral College is a process not an actual place. It serves as a compromise of the presidential election in Congress and by popular vote" (paragraph 1). It can be good at times but most times it has its downfalls. The Electoral College doesn't allow for a direct election compared to popular vote. Also, there isn't a fair number of votes for each presidential candidate per state. If there is a tie in the electoral voting process it can cause a big disaster. I don't believe that anyone wants constant problems when choosing a leader. To avoids all of the problems why not take the Electoral College out overall?

First of all, the Electoral college isn't a direct election. "Under the electorial college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." (Paragraph 10). In actuality, voters don't directly vote for the president when it comes to the electoral college. Although the Electoral College "restores some of the weight in the polititcal balance that large states lose by virtue of mal-apportionment", (paragraph 21) voters don't have the right to control whom their electors are said author Bradford Plumer. Voting for a group of electors doesn't always mean that they'll vote for the candidate in which you favor. This can have a huge affect on the reputation of the Electoral College itsself.

It's not only an indirect election but it's also an unfair election. The number of entitled electors per state is based upon the members of the state's congressional delegation. "One for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your senators." (paragraph 3). This is unfair because the number of "House" members is based on the states overall population compared to the amount of senators. It may somehow be good for the residents who beleive their votes doesn't count becasue of the candidate's regional appeals but what about those who fear that their electors won't choose the candidate in which they favor.

Not only is it indirect and unfair, but it can cause disaster to arise if there is a tie within the electoral voting process. If there is a tie in the in the electoral vote "the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives" (paragraph 12). This is an unfair method also becasue now there's only one vote per state and some states have a higher population than others which can and will cause contreversy in the public. "The pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, may be redcued" (patagraph 22) but it still doesn't reduced the fact that swing voters can cause catastrophe within the electoral voting process. This is because they are the most targeted voting areas due to their reputations as the "most thoughtful voters".

All in all, the Electoral college has both its good things and their downfalls. As can be seen the bad out ways the good in this situation. A voters vote isn't necessarily direct because they aren't voting on a single representative, they are voting on a group of individuals in which they believe will vote for the candidate in which they choose. Also, being that the number of electors is based on a state's number of congressional represenatives it is an unequal and unfair number of electors per state. The electoral college can even cause an uproar if a tie ever falls in place because the "tie breaker" is left in the hands of the House of Representatives. Basically "the electoral colleg is unfair, and irrational" (paragraph 14) and it should be abolished because there is a great amount of mix ups and failures within the system itself.

Score: 5