Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: Although you may think you are voting for your choice of president, you are not.  As of now, when you cast your vote, you are actually just voting for your candidate's electors, as said in "What Is the Electoral College".  In the 2000 campaign, voters in seventeen states didn't have a chance to see the candidates at all.  Those candidates went mainly to the "swing" states, or states that were not certain on who they would be voting for.  The states unvisited, such as Rhode Island and South Carolina, were passed over because the candidates knew they would or wouldn't have their vote no matter what.  The ones who questioned their vote did not have the chance to see either candidate in their state.  In, "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President", the Romney and Obama election is mentioned.  It brings up the fact that Romney knew that throughout the South, he was going to get their vote.  He realized that there was no need to go there because he didn't need anymore popularity in the South because he had already gained their electoral votes.  Those who opposed Romney in the southern states felt that their votes would not matter because majority already knew they were voting for Romney.  If the system were to change, which I believe it should, more people would feel their votes mattered no matter what state they were in.

Score: 2