Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: The article, "What Is the Electoral College?" written by the Office of the Federal Register states, "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate". That is not fair to other voters who don't vote for the popular candidate in their state; they don't receive any electors. Additionally, most candidates only advertise and visit "swing" states. "Swing" states are the states that usually determine the outcome of the election. "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" written by Bradford Plumer says, "During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad". It's unjustifiable that simply because you have fewer electors in your state, you don't get to watch your candidates campaign. As previously mentioned, each state has a different number of electoral votes. It all depends on the population. For example, Texas, with a huge population has 38 electors, while Maine only has 4. The article, "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid out defenses of the system are wrong" states, "Beacuse each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters". Why do some states have more representatives than others just because of their population? It's not fair to the smaller states. It is true that the bigger states have more people in them, needing more representation, however, the smaller states have as much to say as the big ones. '

Score: 2