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

For years, the presidential election has been running with an Electoral College, one in which the public does not vote for their choice canidate directly, but instead for a slate of electors to have a final deciding vote. Although the system could have worked like a breeze when first originated-- a point to be reckoned with, since I do not see how the system ever correctly displayed the citizens of America-- the Electoral College method has proven itself to be un-deomcratic, unfair, and an unjustly irrational system.

Simply stated, the Electoral College does not allow an accurate representation of voter's beliefs, taking their votes and twisting, manipulating them into a deciding vote from electors. The popular vote can be seen as an input/output machine, the people's own votes going in the contraption, and once inside, the input is stretched and exagerated to output a "neater" electoral vote out of 538. While some argue that the Electoral College vote is usually rather close to the popular vote, it just isn't the same as when the Constution loosely states America as a  'for the people, by the people' nation.

Several times throughout history, the Electoral college has swayed the presidential election in a completely different route than what the outcome of the popular vote would have been. The perfect example, constantly brought up in arguments against the Electoral college, is the 2000 election with main canidates of Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Through the popular vote, it is clearly seen that a majority of voters chose Al Gore to be their president. Through the process of the electoral college and manipulation of votes, though, the Presidental canidate ended with George Bush winning the election with a 271 electoral votes versus a 266 pointed toward Gore, thus creating an entirely different viewpoint of the people.

The idea of an Electoral College is also what has swung possible voters out of voting rooms, the voting method's 'winner takes all' outlook overriding. With the set up of the Electoral college, popular voters decievingly decide for a slate of electors instead of a President. For example, if a majority of Florida electors voted for Bush, the entirety of Florida's 29 votes are down for Bush, even though not all electors really did vote that way. Those citizens in states who do not fit with what large majority of voters believe are discouraged in voting for their own canidate knowning that, no matter what, it's almost certain their state will end up giving its votes to the canidate they oppose. This can lead voters to not voting at all, creating an even less accurate election while the country pushes citizens to vote, frowning down on them if they do not.

Besides major points, there are many smaller faults wiithin the Electoral college. In example, there is always the possibility of a slate voting for a canidate that differs from the one they have pratically promised to vote for. The fate of our country is put into the hands of the 538 members of the electoral college, opposed to the vastly greater full population of American citizens. Also, with the 538 Electoral College members being an even number, although rare, it is more likely for there to be a tie than if the popular vote was used in deciding the presidential canidate.

A pro Electoral college argument is that the citzens in swing states-- states that are likely to go either way in an election instead of an almost certian outcome-- are more likely to pay attention to ad campaigns knowing that their state is most likely what will decide the winner of the election. Advocates say that they are, on average, most likely to be the most thoughtful voters, and that the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide our nations outcome. This outlook is littered with flaws, first starting off with the fact that swing states get more media coverage than the rest of the nation. These voters are valued more than others and are given more information to have an informed vote. Besides the fact that it is proposterous to value the vote of one citizen over another, this isn't fair to members of other states who recieve virtually no coverage due to canidates feeling like the state's vote has been secured since day one. The nation as a whole should recieve all the facts together with equal coverage, so that each and every voter can become a thoughtful one, and not only those located in swing states.

All in all, the decision to abolish the Electoral College is a backed up one, the facts and details there to support, meanwhile advocates for the practically ancient method don't have many solid counters to prove their point.

I hope you take this letter and it's claims into consideration.

Thank you for your time,

Floridian citizen PROPER_NAME

Score: 6