Reading:
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.
Lecture:
While traditional voting systems have some problems, it’s doubtful that computerized voting will make the situation any better. Computerized voting may seem easy for people who are used to computers. But what about people who aren’t? People who can’t afford computers, people who don’t use them on a regular basis—these people will have trouble using computerized voting machines. These voters can easily cast the wrong vote or be discouraged from voting altogether because of fear of technology. Furthermore, it’s true that humans make mistakes when they count up ballots by hand. But are we sure that computers will do a better job? After all, computers are programmed by humans, so “human error” can show up in mistakes in their programs. And the errors caused by these defective programs may be far more serious. The worst a human official can do is miss a few ballots. But an error in a computer program can result in thousands of votes being miscounted or even permanently removed from the record. And in many voting systems, there is no physical record of the votes, so a computer recount in the case of a suspected error is impossible! As for our trust of computer technology for banking and communications, remember one thing: these systems are used daily and they are used heavily. They didn’t work flawlessly when they were first introduced. They had to be improved on and improved on until they got as reliable as they are today. But voting happens only once every two years nationally in the United States and not much more than twice a year in many local areas. This is hardly sufficient for us to develop confidence that computerized voting can be fully trusted.
My integrated writing:
The reading and the lecture are both about whether or not the traditional voting system should be substituted by a computerized one. The author of the reading feels that technology would make this process more efficient. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that it would only worsen it.
To begin with, the author argues that people often mark wrong names by accident. The article mentions that computers would enable voters not only to vote by simply touching the candidate’s name on the screen but also to adjust the size of the text to their needs. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that many people who are not familiar with the use of computers would make even more mistakes or they would be discouraged from voting altogether out of fear of having to use a computer.
Secondly, the writer suggests that since the counting is performed by humans the number of potential mistakes rises. In the article it is said that errors could be avoided if the counting was done by an automated software. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that as computers are programmed by humans, mistakes can only become graver. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that in case of a suspected error, no recount can take place as in most cases there is no physical record kept.
Finally, the author posits that both officials and individuals rely on computers to perform banking and communication tasks, therefore it is wrong to consider technology used in voting unsafe. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is that unlike voting, banking and communication processes take place everyday. Moreover, he notes that these softwares underwent gradual improvements throughout the years to become as reliable as they are now, however in the case of voting there is not enough time for technology to gain the trust of the voters.
The lecture explained why the computerized voting system can not replace the traditional voting system. There are following three reasons.
First of all, not everyone can use computers correctly. Some people do not have access to computers, some people are not used of computers and some people are even scared of this new technology. If the voters do not know how to use a computer, how do you expect them to finish the voting process through computers? This directly refutes the reading passage which states that computerized voting is easier by just touching the screen.
Secondly, computers may make mistakes as people do. As computers are programmed by the human beings, thus errors are inevitable in the computer system. Problems caused by computer voting systems may be more serious than those caused by people. A larger numbers of votes might be miss counted or even removed from the system. Furthermore, it would take more energy to recount the votes. Again this contradicts what is stated in the reading which states that only people will make mistakes in counting.
Thirdly, computerized voting system is not reliable because it has note reached a stable status. People trust computers to conduct banking transactions because the computerized banking system is being used daily and frequently and has been stable. However, the voting does not happen as often as banking thus the computerized voting system has not been proved to be totally reliable.
All in all, not everyone can use a computer properly, computer cause mistakes and computerized voting system is not reliable are the main reasons why computerized voting system can not replace the traditional 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 |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Overall the widespread use of the internet has a mostly positive effect on life in today s world Use reasons and details to support your opinion 76
- students are influenced more by their teachers than by their friends 70
- The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company s president In an effort to improve our employees productivity we should implement electronic monitoring of employees Internet use from their wor 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to 58
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 75
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1427.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22710622711 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64568791812 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509157509158 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.5784070487 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1875 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0625 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.875 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247151889588 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0914359183073 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706985439691 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167444324954 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395472011543 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1427.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22710622711 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64568791812 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509157509158 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.5784070487 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1875 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0625 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.875 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247151889588 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0914359183073 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706985439691 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167444324954 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395472011543 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.