Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Dear Senator,

Concerning the topic of the merits and demerits of the Electoral College, herein abbreviated as EC. The Electoral College, through which our president and vice presidents currently are selected, is an institution that concerns many people in the United States. Some claim that the Electoral College is "an anachronism, a non-democratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner." (Posner) Though the lack of control over the president of the United States' election is disconcerting, the Electoral College, as you are aware is beneficial to elections, for example, it allows disputes to be settled over ties and complications in the popular voting process to be reduced, and minimises the amount of votes necessary for tallying, the Electoral College also provides accurate representation to citizens in certain areas. However, is this appropriate? Can the single justification for the disconnection from citizens of a nation to their president be justified on convenience? From what most sources suggest, the Electoral College is a safety system, in place to minimize the risk of complications arising from the voting process. The use of the Electoral College in this manner is unsettling to the American voter, and poses many risks for the basis of the United States. Therefore, the Electoral College should not be allowed to continue in its current manner.

Foremost, the EC as a method of back-up to reduce risk of complications in popular voting is inappropriate. In theory, the EC is not invalid; however, the way in which it is implemented is prone to error, or lack thereof, for reasons that harms the voter's representation. As each citizen votes, he/she votes for an EC slate, with each party selecting a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee. Richard Posner in his publication "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President," states that, "it is entirely possible the the winner of the electoral vote will nto win the national popular vote." However, Posner, immediately states thereafter, "yet, that has happened very rarely." Posner is correct in this case that this phenomena does happen rarely. The reason for this happening rarely is the fact that the EC adopts a "winner-take-all" voting scheme, where the majority candidate wins all of the EC votes for a specific state. To understand how this is a poor way of electing a president, a view into one's ethicality is necessary. The president of the United States is meant to represent the largest amount of the population, inevitably, there will be many that are unhappy with their president. Representing the largest amount of the US population requires that the candidate in question, theoretically, receives the most votes by popular polling. An informed American studies the resolutions and principles of potential candidates, and makes an informed decision as to which one represents their resolutions and principles. Upon deciding which candidate suits their needs, this example citizen casts his/her vote. This vote is a marker which signifies that a certain candadate will, if elected, represent this voter most. Should more than 50% of Americans decide that a certain candidate suits them best, that candidate will represent the largest amount of the American population. The EC, in comparison, awards the full amount of votes possible to the winner of the majority of electors. If 55% of the electors vote one way, and 45% in the opposite direction, the 55% will take precedence, and win the total possible votes for that state. Unfortunately, certain citizens who would have been represented accurately by popular polling may be deprived of the representation by the EC. The disconnect between the American citizen and the president of the United States is detrimental to the whole nation, including the executive body.

The Electoral College is criticized to have disconnected the United States citizen from his/her presidential candidates. However, this has been justified with the claim that "the EC saves the complications of polling the entire American population." There are inherent risks with polling the entire population: the fact that there are too many votes to keep an accurate count of. Keeping accurate track of said votes, however, is the responsibility of the current president, who, even during the end of his term, must represent the people who voted for him in providing them with a way to elect their president of choice. In this case, "practical" justification signifies the lack of interest in allowing the United States citizen to vote. A dispute of outcome in popular vote is high, the possibility of dispute in the EC is less, due to less electors being polled. The EC attempts to provide an accurate representation of the population, ensuring that the candidate selected is a candidate that suits most of each region, not one in specific. Unfortunately, despite efforts, this system is not accurate. Posner states in his publication that, "the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election," morally, his reasoning is spot-on. An uneducated voter is dangerous to the society he/she lives in, regardless of country. By contrast, the United States guarantees every citizen a right to vote for his/her representatives; pursuant to this mandate, a person of great power cannot be allowed to arbitrate that "only educated voters should decide the election," simply because an educated voter is not defined, and cannot be defined.

Large states also play a role in the EC's inaccuracies. While one may argue that larger states have more citizens, therefore, a candidate chosen by popular vote represents those citizens, regardless of their geographic location, smaller states, argue, conversely, that states, as defined entities, should have the power to have equal representation in congress, and the EC. Reflecting back to the resolution of mal-apportionment of the Senate, two senators were granted to each state, regardless of size. The Electoral College, however, does not apportion this representation evenly for smaller states. Popular vote, obviously, depends on the population of a certain state for a candidate to be elected. The EC also depends on a state's population. Smaller states who do not have many EC votes arguably should have a chance for an equal vote, as the Senate provides for in the United States congress. The EC does not represent this opposite side to representation.

Understanding the root of this argument is crucial to being able to make a difference. Where accuracy is possible, it should be achieved, where accuracy is seemingly impossible, it should be striven for. Allowing the EC to continue in its current manner is inaccurate, by any standard, and sacrifices accuracy and representation for convenience of election. The EC should, when properly instituted, regard itself as a body where the people are further supplemented in their popular representation, not opposed. Senator, I have left the personal remarks to the ending of this letter, but would like to stress my discontent with the EC as it stands today. I understand there are practical limitations that cannot be met, I understand that the EC may be more convenient when it comes to hiring employees to track votes, and co-ordinate the process as a whole, but it is something that must be done, and striven for, in the most accurate way possible. You, Senator, were elected by popluar vote because the population chose you as the candidate that best suited our interests, and were most likely to defend our interests in the face of opposition. Where we have benefitted you from voting as we have, we request you now represent us in the election of our presidential candidate that best suits our interests nationally. For the reasons provided theretofore, we strongly urge a negation of the Electoral college in favour of a more accurate voting method.

Yours,

PROPER_NAME

Score: 6