Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
It is in the best interest of the people that you do away with the Electoral College. When people vote, they want it to be a direct vote to the election, not a vote for their chosen candidate's electors. The Electoral College should be abolished because it doesn't guarantee your vote, the House's selection can't be expected to reflect the will of the people, and swing voters could cause a catastrophe.

To begin, the Electoral College should be abolished because it doesn't guarantee your vote. As stated before, when you vote, there is no say in who actually wins the election. You are voting for electors who then vote for the President. While it is a rare occurance, those Electors may betray you and vote for the other party, cancelling your vote totally out. If a candidate gets the most popular votes, that doesn't guarantee them as President, because they still have to get the Electoral College's votes. In the third source titled, "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President" by Richard A. Posner, it reads, "It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the first time since 1888." This sentence means that President Bush won with fewer popular votes and more electoral votes. If their was no Electoral College, Al Gore would've won the election. The people would've thought that Al Gore was going to win, and they were probably in for a surprise when they saw that Bush had won with fewer popular votes. It just goes to show that an election can go either way, and there is no closure for a candidate until it is actually announced who won.

Next, the House's selection can't be expected to reflect the will of the people. Say a Republican candidate gets a majority of the popular votes, but the Democratic candidate wins because he is chosen by the Electoral College. The people of the United States might actually feel betrayed because they felt that the Republican party could benefit the economy and society best, and that President might not be up-to-par and disappoint the people. Also in the third article, it reads "...to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president." The statement really says a lot about both sides of the argument. If there is an Electoral College and if their isn't an Electoral College, people could still feel this way. If a candidate who has less popular votes wins, then those states that voted for him/her might feel as if they "will have no regard for their interests".

Lastly, swing voters could cause a catastrophe. Swing states could be considered manipulative because they all know that the popular vote rests in their hands. Will it be Democratic or Republican? You never know. The candidates focus mainly on campaigning in these states because these are the ones that are half and half, states such as Ohio. While there are thoughtful voters, there are also ones who could care less about who the President is and just want to keep America on the edge of her seat while they decide who they want to vote for. In the second source, "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" is says "In 1976, a tie would have occured if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way." The states are swing states and they truly determine the fate of the election. As said before, those states get the most attention from the candidates, who try to make themselves as appealing as possible. In the second source as well, the author says "During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad." Rhode Island and South Carolina are states that are almost entirely for one party so there is no use in the opposite party going there to try and persaude them to change their minds because it is most likely not going to happen. While they may feel neglected, it's just how it is.

To conclude, the Electoral College should be banished because it doesn't guarantee your vote, the House's selection cannot be expected to reflect the will of the people, and swing voters could cause a catastrophe.

Score: 5