Critics say that current voting systems used in the United States are inefficient and often lead to the inaccurate counting of votes. Miscounts can be especially damaging if an election is closely contested. Those critics would like the traditional systems to be replaced with far more efficient and trustworthy computerized voting systems. In traditional voting, one major source of inaccuracy is that people accidentally vote for the wrong candidate. Voters usually have to find the name of their candidate on a large sheet of paper containing many names—the ballot—and make a small mark next to that name. People with poor eyesight can easily mark the wrong name. The computerized voting machines have an easy-to-use touch-screen technology: to cast a vote, a voter needs only to touch the candidate’s name on the screen to record a vote for that candidate; voters can even have the computer magnify the name for easier viewing. Another major problem with old voting systems is that they rely heavily on people to count the votes. Officials must often count up the votes one by one, going through every ballot and recording the vote. Since they have to deal with thousands of ballots, it is almost inevitable that they will make mistakes. If an error is detected, a long and expensive recount has to take place. In contrast, computerized systems remove the possibility of human error, since all the vote counting is done quickly and automatically by the computers. Finally some people say it is too risky to implement complicated voting technology nationwide. But without giving it a thought, governments and individuals alike trust other complex computer technology every day to be perfectly accurate in banking transactions as well as in the communication of highly sensitive information.
The article and he lecture both deal with the voting system in the US. Whilst the author of the reading thinks that the traditional voting system should be substituted for a computerized voting system for three specific reasons, the lecturer apposes the author’s claims. In his opinion, a computerized voting system is not a solution to current problems.
First, the writer claims that when votes are cast on paper mistakes often occur due to people choosing the wrong candidate by accident. Furthermore, it is stated in the article that computerized voting machines are easier to use and voter can even increase the size of the candidates’ names which facilitates reading them. In contrast, the lecturer argues that voters who are not familiar with computers will have difficulties handling these machines. Additionally, he maintains that it is likely that these people enter the wrong vote or they may be deterred from voting at at because they are scared of electronic voting machines.
Second, the author mentions that since in traditional voting the votes are counted by humans, mistakes are nearly unavoidable which can result in a lengthy and costly process of votes having to recounted. On the top of that, he adds that computerized voting systems are not subject to human error because they count the votes automatically. However, the lecturer calls this argument into questions by saying that computers are made by humans, and thus they are prone to errors. Further, he remarks that if an error is caused by an electronic voting machine, the situation is much worse as a huge number of votes may be counted incorrectly or deleted.
Finally, the writer asserts that the argument that using electronic voting systems is fraught with with does not hold water. In fact, people put faith in computers on a daily basis, for example, when doing bank transfers or when communicating critical information. As apposed to the author, the lecturer holds that this technology had to be improved continuously which was only possible because it was used frequently. Highlights that voting is a rare event that takes place only ever two years on a national level and not more than twice a year on a local level, which does not suffice to place full trust in computerized voting system.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-30 | Shimakaze514 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-30 | Shimakaze514 | 89 | view |
| 2023-07-28 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 80 | view |
| 2022-09-17 | YACHI PATEL | 80 | view |
| 2022-09-17 | YACHI PATEL | 73 | view |
- a piece of jewelry vs a concert 90
- Is progress always good 90
- Should one make an important decision alone 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more important to make friends with people who can have fun with us than to make friends with people who can help us when we are in need 90
- The government wants to make investment to improve education Which one of the following investments do you think is the best 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 20, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'lectures'.
Suggestion: lectures
The article and he lecture both deal with the voting system in the...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 573, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: at
...ote or they may be deterred from voting at at because they are scared of electronic v...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 95, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: with
...ng electronic voting systems is fraught with with does not hold water. In fact, people pu...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, thus, for example, in contrast, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 12.0772626932 199% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1914.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 379.0 270.72406181 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05013192612 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71654304242 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 145.348785872 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525065963061 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 600.3 419.366225166 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4543390036 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.6 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2666666667 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.53333333333 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31137138736 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108956020228 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0597710359338 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195781488541 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462579371386 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 63.6247240618 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.