Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I profoundly believe that the United States should not keep the Electoral College because the person who has the popular vote may not win presidency, and the "winner take all" system causes voters in certain states to not feel like they are creating an impact. The electoral college is a process that the founding fathers established in the constition. The electoral college consits of 538 electors and a majority of 278 votes.

In our voting system even if a candidate receives more votes than their opponents he or she still could lose the election because of the electoral college. Here is a prime example, in the 2000 election Al Gore won the popular vote but because he had less electoral votes than Bush he unfourtunetly lost the election. According to Bradford Plumer "over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now." It seems rather logical that if somebody gains the most votes in an election that the country would prefer that canidate to be the president. For that reason alone the reader should side with the idea to abolish the electoral college. Now besides somebody receiving more or less electoral votes, perhaps the candidates tied. In this case it gets thrown to the House Of Representitives which will cause a Wyoming Rep. with 500,000 voters to have just as much say as a California Rep. with 35,000,000 voters. All a tie would do is corrupt the voting system even more than it is. For those reasons there should be an indefinite ban on the electoral college.

Additionally the winner take all method in some states makes voters feel unimportant. Some may argue that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president but regions do have the power to swing an election in an enourmous way. An effect of the winner take all system is candidates not going to certain states if they know they can not win it. This can basically stop some voters from wasting time and voting because they may feel there personal vote would make no difference. In the 2000 election "17 states did not see candidates at all." according to Bradford Plumer. How could somebody possibly feel engaged in an election if whoever is running finds there vote unimportantant to them winning the election.

In conclusion it is official that the electoral collage is unfair, out dated, and irrational. With that being said we should abolish it because it stops the voter who has the majority of votes from winning, and can undoubtably make voters feel unimportant.

Score: 4