Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Electoral College is a great thing and some people might think its not, but there is some wrong things about it like voters vote not for the president, but for slate of electors who in turn elect the president. I'm not going to keep it because its not a good idea and people want to vote for who they want and not vote just so someone can pick who they want like their choice didn't matter. My argument against the electoral college is we might call the disaster factor. The american people consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for mech worse. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Back in 1960 segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new elecotrs who would oppose John F. Kennedy. ''So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.'' In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused tovote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.

Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. The Senate would choose the vice-president. Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters,would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many voters vote one party for preident and another party for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.

Score: 2