Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: What Is the Electoral College?" states you are voting for electors when you vote, but what is the point if they can simply defy you? It would be like if after the president was chosen, the Senate could overule him with a 1/5 vote. There is also the point in Plumer's article about the time Hawaii sent two slates, which forced the desicion to Nixon, who had to validate only the opponet's votes in fear of otherwise receiving bad publicity. There is also the strange way of resolving a tie, which boils down to the same thing as the winner-take-all system, except if more people support  it doesn't matter. It would be like if everybody in the  room wasn't alowed to vote, other than one voted, but everybody in the room agreed anyway for some strange, miraculous reason. (Of course, the one guy in the  next room doesn't agree, and completely takes out your vote, regardless of the fact that there were 30 people in this one.)

Score: 2