Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: Basically, all that a candidate even needs is the majority votes of the Electoral College in order to win an election. "[...] according to a Gallup pole in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore - thanks to the quirks of the electoral college - won the popular vote but lost the presidency[...]" (Plumer 9). Collecting the votes of the Electoral College is the only concern of a candidate - therefore the only reason that candidates speak to the people is to influence them to cast votes for the Electoral College, which then cast votes for that candidate. "[...] Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes [...]" (Posner 18). It's as if the people are just physical steps that electoral voters use to get to the person that the Electoral college wants to be the president of the U.S.

"Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always" (Plumer 10). As mentioned in the article by Richard A. Posner, members of the Electoral College are chosen and expected to vote for their party's nominee. However, people don't always deliver what we expect from them. It is completly possible for an elector to change their mind, and cast their finalizing vote toward the opposite candidate. These members cast their votes directly to the candidate, and they can easily change their vote.

Score: 2