Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in it's Congressional delegation: one for each member in the house of Representatives and plus two for your senators. Each candidate running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors. When we vote this way, there's a certainty of outcome. A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College is possible, it happened in 2000, but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote.

The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates to focus their campaign effforts on the toss-up states. Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the competing candidates, knowing that they are going to decide the election. The Ellectoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the senate decreed in the Constistution.

The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College. There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.

Score: 0