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.
Many critics on the current voting systems in the US claim that they are ineffective way and frequently miscount votes. Some argue that computerized voting system is a feasible way to tackle this problem. However, the professor disagrees with this suggestion and provides three reasons to refute it.
To start, not everyone can use a computer correctly. According to the reading, using computers will help people vote for candidates easily by touching the screen. However, some people have trouble with using computers. If the government implements the computerized voting systems in elections, some voters may either cast a wrong ballot or waste their time on the voting process. Thus, the professor refutes the original statement that computerized voting systems are more convenient than traditional voting systems.
On the other hand, computerized voting systems may have make the same mistakes as people do. The article claims that since the official deals with thousands of ballots, they will make the miscounted problems in the counting process. The professor, however, points out that humans may do the same things when they use the program on computerized voting systems. If it happens, there are technological issues that should be fixed by humans, and the authorities would take more energy to recount the ballots. Hence, contrary to what the article suggests, the professor does not agree this view.
Moreover, computerized voting systems have successful experience in elections. The article argues that bank systems, which is more complicated that voting systems, are also used in daily life. However, the implementation of bank systems is based on several successful experiences nationwide. If governments want to use computerized voting systems at the national level, they should make the, appear more reliable in elections.
All told, despite those deficiencies in the traditional voting systems, computerized voting systems seem to fix their disadvantages before official use them.
| 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 |
- People s attitudes are determined more by their immediate sitution or surrondings than by society as a whole 70
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Universities should require all students to gain some working experience as part time employees or interns before they can graduate Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 73
- According to a recent report cheating among college and university students is on the rise However Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeav 66
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take 58
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 387, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...at the national level, they should make the, appear more reliable in elections. All...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52117263844 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8357551149 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560260586319 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.4246109417 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1666666667 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0555555556 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77777777778 7.06452816374 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.276350149835 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0950423230567 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0633762726746 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174293502641 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336116407797 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.44 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 387, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...at the national level, they should make the, appear more reliable in elections. All...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52117263844 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8357551149 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560260586319 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.4246109417 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1666666667 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0555555556 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77777777778 7.06452816374 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.276350149835 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0950423230567 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0633762726746 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174293502641 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336116407797 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.44 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.