Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: It also means that larger states have the advantage, because they get more votes, like California (55), Texas (38), and Florida (29), while smaller states get less, such as Alaska (3), Rhode Island (3), and Hawaii (4). Just to add insult to injury, this means that larger states are more fought over by politicians, leaving smaller states practically ignored. This is unfair to people in the Dakotas or Montana have no information to base their votes on, instead just picking a canidate by mainly party affiliation. the biggest political battles are in fact fought over the biggest states, in the forms of advertisements and propaganda. Although the propaganda is truely just that: propaganda, there is some truth in them, and the voters in bigger states are more well versed in the political and practical advantages of one canidate over the other. Article 3, while defending the Electoral College, in fact condems itself, by saying that voters in so called "swing states," where there is no true dominant party, are likely to be given the most information on the canidates as they battle over who will get that state's votes in the college. The same thing can be said for the bigger states, because neither politician can really afford to let the other gain the upper hand in that state. Therefore smaller states, or states that are basicly marooned on one party are ignored or disregarded as worthless and unattainable in any case, so they widthold information from them, forcing them to vote blindly in favor of whichever party they choose, which votes may be discarded anyway. With an uncensored popular vote, the political canidates will be forced to advertise for all of the united states, instead of just the bigger or indevisive states. this will also remove all of the unfair advantages from the larger states, including more information as well as an unfairly weighted voting system.

Score: 2