Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
While there have been presidents that have run without earning the popular vote, it does not mean that the Electoral College is inefficient, bad, or unnecessary.  The Electoral College, chosen by our founding fathers, is a process in which people elect for electors.  Then the electors vote for the president.  Each state gets a certain number of electors, or electoral votes, depending on their population.  This way, no single group of people can sway the voting largely.  Instead, only the state would be effected.  Without a doubt, the Electoral College has been working well for centuries, and I see no good reason to change it.

For starters, it is much easier than a popular vote to decide.  Yes, the chance for a tie is there, but to count each state rather than each and every single vote is much easier nowadays.  Counting such a plurality of votes is already a difficulty, even right here in the Sun Shine State.  Imagine counting all the votes right down to the last one!  Even though a tie is more likely this way, the odds of a tie are so rare, what does it matter?

Another truly great thing is the fact that any president must have appeal to all states, or at least most.  Having the favor in the south and concentrating it there will not give you more votes.  In fact, it is more likely you will not be president if you yeild strongly to any one region.  Doing so may lose you many votes in other areas that may be difficult to recapture.  If a president was for say, leaning towards big old California and Florida, but not going very much for the other states, then yes, he may win many, many votes from California and Florida and possibly win the election, if it was a popular vote.  But this is not the case.  In an electoral votes, winning all votes in a few states is hardly useful.  That, of course, plays majorly into elections, which is a reason why some of your favorite presidential candidates didn't win.

Another great thing I am to mention is loss of plurality.  What if my buddy and I each got only 40% of the votes.  The other guy in Tex. got the other 20%.  Who would win?  In the Electoral College, the Tex. dude may win a few votes in each state, but rarely will he win any.  With the Electoral College, other minor candidates are less likely to screw the whole thing up.

It is true there have been faults.  Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO have all antagonized the Electoral College.  One reason is that electorals do not have to vote for whom ever they chose in the beginning.  If my vote gets some Bob McShnuffle into the electoral voting system, but he votes for someone other than my choice, then there is going to be major pandemonium.  Is it fair that your vote and so many others gets flipped just because Bob McShnuffle was unhappy with that president?  Perhaps, but this does not happen often.  Usually, it does not cause too much of a balance tipping.  But the true problem is the word of the people.  We have so many speakers for us, but they don't always say the right things that we want.  Fortunately, these incidents do not happen all the time.  To fret over such things only offers you more problems and less solutions.  By having an elector, a representative, someone can't say something stupid and pull the whole country down with him.  Instead, this is the best way to address the majority of the people without conflict.

On that happy note, I must mention the electoral college is not perfect.  Nothing is.  But it is easier than popular voting, counts all states and regions, and naturally avoids run-offs.  Of course, its still got its flaws.  But you have to admit that those founding fathers did pretty good.  Arguably, it has been the best way for the presidential election, and it still is...

Score: 6