Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The United States is a democratic country where the people decide on a leader through voting, or so it's supposed to be. We Americans use something called the Electoral College, where a state is worth a certain amount of points, and when you win that state for your party, you gain those points. I find this to be unfair, because you could win by popular vote, but lose because the opposing party won the states with the biggest number of points. I think that the Electoral College should be removed and replaced with popular vote only. It would make elections more fair, and it would make peoples' votes feel like they change something.

When you go to vote, you don't actually vote for the candidate, you vote for a group of people who in turn vote for the candidate. I find this to be ineffective, because the people you are voting for are still able to switch there vote to the other party, and humans aren't the most honest things on Earth. Also, there is the feeling of being important that you get when you think that you could tip the scale, it makes you feel special, and in control of your own country. What's the point of voting if there's a chance it might not matter, because the other party just won California, the state with the most amount of points, 55, and you couldn't do anything because you live in Idaho or North Dakota, with only three little points. Popular vote would make you feel involved, and happy to help.

As I stated before, each state has an amount of points based on the population, which in turn affect how much you help your desired party. Seems reasonable, right? You would think that the more the population, the more impact it has on the election. That's right, but it's also unfair because states that have noone living there could all vote for one party, but it wouldn't help that much, unless the points were close and that state tipped the scale. But big states, like California, Texas, and Florida have some of the most points, so if you were to win those, you already have more than one hundred points. Candidates would try to just seek out those jumbo prizes and systematicaly try to win the largest behind "the Big Four". If someone was reading this and wanted the Electoral College, they could say that the big states would still have an advantage with more voters, and that is right, but they wouldn't be as big of prizes. So the election turns from a voice of the people, speaking up for a new leader, and turns into a mad chase to get the biggest prizes before the other party, like a game of Monopoly. In Monopoly, you buy areas with your money, and when someone lands on that space you own, they have to pay you. The places ath the end of the board have the priciest cost, but the best outcome. You can also build property on spaces to make the enemy players pay more. If you were to buy those, you practically win the game. On the other hand, the spaces at the begining are basiclly worthless, costing about 100 dollars and giving you about 1000. Those are like the small states, that have almost no value to the election, and the big states are worth a lot.

In America, the people should be able to feel responsible for their country's future, and not feel as if their state doesn't matter. My own words might not be able to change peoples' minds, but I'm sure the votes aren't tied.

Score: 5