Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Having "electors" vote for us from the electoral college is basically giving us, the people, no say into what we president we want. Why ask us the people to vote when you have someone or others to chose what they think we want for president? Changing the from electoral college voting to the popular vote can give us the people a voice for what we want and think is best for this country and it gives us a reason to vote. If we still electoral college voting then our voice as a country is not being heard.

Giving us a voice in this country that we live in an enormous oppurtunity than what other countries around the world do not have the privelage to have. Giving us, the people, a voice brings us together as a country and it unifies us. It also means that not only do we have governent power but we have people power as a whole. Bradford Plumer from source 2 explains to us in his first subtitle what is wrong withe the electoral college and he startes that "When you vote, you are not voting for the president, you are voting for a slate of electors, who then for the president of their choice." That was an example of our people not having a voice because we are basically wasting our time voting because at the end of the day the slate of electors are the ones who end up chosing who they want as president. Why should we vote when our vote doesn't even matter?

Moreover, I feel that us voting is a waste of our time because of this winner-takes-all method that Bradford Plumer states in the fifth paragraph of his article titled: The Indefensible Electoral College. The winner-takes-all method is when presidents travel to specific states in which they believe they would win in the electoral votes and some states do not get visited at all by neither of the canidates because the canidates do not feel like they would win their votes. I understand that the electoral college is a process in which was founded by our founding fathers and established it into our constitution so that there is a compromise between election of the presodent by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens (Source 1). It is not really a compromise when you have a system in which a president can win the popular vote by 99 percent of the people but still lose by the electoral college because we basically have no say in the election.

On a final note, the electoral college system is a unfair way of our countries presidents to be elected when we also have the votes of the people which have no effect on which canidate wins. Although, our founding fathers thought this was a terrific idea at the time of making this part of the constitution, in reality we have a much larger population today than they did in the past when they had made the constitution. Having have all these people in our country vote today for a canidate and later have the vote not take any effect which canidate should win is very unfair. I can understand the electoral college system working back then when it was first made because the population was still relatively minimal but now we must abolish it because the points that some electoral vote colleges get is very small compared to some other states. How would you feel if you were a canidate and got 99.9 percent of the votes and still lost?

Score: 5