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 leture disgreed with the article's opinions. It's not a better solution to use the computerized voting systems.
Firstly, it might be hard for the voters who don't use the computer so often, or the users who is fear of the technology, even some of voters can not aford a computer. Touch screen may also be hard to use for people who is not familiar with computers. Secondly, computer is programmed by human beings, which means it can also have errors. Instead of human being's counting error, which only results one or two counting error in number, an errror in the program code could cause tramendous error in number. In case of the computer crash or disaster, it may lost all the voting information. We can not even to make a re-count. Lastly, our daily banking or other highly sensitive infomation system, is actually improved as time goes by. They were also problematic at the beginning. As we use them so often, we have more chances to find problems, and furturemore, to fix and improve them. However, for the voting system, we only use them every 2 years nationally and some other rare events. We just don't use it often enough to find a bug or test it thoroughly.
| 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 |
- 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 80
- In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book manuscript written on vellum vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper The Voynich manuscript as it became known resembl 80
- Question Do you agree or disagree with the following statement A teacher s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 85
- 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 75
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement A teacher s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 49, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
...re disgreed with the articles opinions. Its not a better solution to use the comput...
^^^
Line 2, column 46, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ly, it might be hard for the voters who dont use the computer so often, or the users...
^^^^
Line 2, column 127, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the voters') or simply say ''some voters''.
Suggestion: some of the voters; some voters
...ers who is fear of the technology, even some of voters can not aford a computer. Touch screen ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 994, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...lly and some other rare events. We just dont use it often enough to find a bug or te...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, however, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, even so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 962.0 1373.03311258 70% => OK
No of words: 209.0 270.72406181 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6028708134 5.08290768461 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.80221413058 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54004353465 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.602870813397 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 309.6 419.366225166 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.4587643349 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.0 110.228320801 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0769230769 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38461538462 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 2.0 4.09492273731 49% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169677100297 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562490667842 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0348034507988 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119545950439 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0393064491449 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.3 13.3589403974 62% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.1 12.2367328918 74% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.