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 lecture disagrees with the reading passage regarding the issue of computer voting system. While the reading claims that computerized voting system is much more efficient and trustworthy than the traditional systems, the lecture points out that the disadvantages of using the computerized voting system. The points made out in the lecture will be explained in detail below.
First of all, the passage asserts that computerized voting machines resolve the problems of inaccuracy and hard-to-use problems of the traditional voting. However, the lecture mentions that while computerized voting system may seem easy-to-use, it is not the case for some portion of the people. There may be those who can't afford computers, or those who don't use them in a regular basis. For these people, they would face troubles when voting with computers, such as casting wrong votes by mistake or even getting discouraged from voting due to unfamiliarity with computers.
Secondly, the lecture disapproves a point made in the passage, which claims that computerized voting system can eliminate the possibility of human errors, by pointing out that we cannot be certain that computers will absolutely be better than humans. Computers are still programmed by humans and can consist of human errors. Such errors would be far more serious than those occurred in traditional voting, because errors such as removing or miscounting the votes would happen in a far larger scale than traditional voting.
Last but not least, while the reading concludes that computerized voting can be trusted with confidence, as similar system which is used for banking transactions are fully trusted by governments and individuals, the lecture explains that the two systems cannot be perceived as similar. The banking system did not work flawlessly at first, but since it has been used heavily by multiple users in a daily basis, it had sufficient time to be improved constantly. However, unlike the banking transactions, voting is held only once or twice a year which did not have enough time to be developed with confidence and cannot be fully trusted.
To sum up, the lecture disapproves each of the point made in the lecture, which asserts that traditional system is highly inaccurate and should be replaced with computerized voting systems, and claims that computerized voting system is not proven to be far more efficient and trustworthy than traditional voting.
| 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 |
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants Recently butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States This change however has had little impact 63
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States Only about 2 percent of customers have complain 60
- 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 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In 20 years there will be less pollution in the air than there is today Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer Be sure to use your own words Do not use memorized examples 73
- 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 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The lecture disagrees with the reading p...
^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ure will be explained in detail below. First of all, the passage asserts that c...
^^
Line 2, column 321, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...n of the people. There may be those who cant afford computers, or those who dont use...
^^^^
Line 2, column 357, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...who cant afford computers, or those who dont use them in a regular basis. For these ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g due to unfamiliarity with computers. Secondly, the lecture disapproves a poin...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...larger scale than traditional voting. Last but not least, while the reading co...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...onfidence and cannot be fully trusted. To sum up, the lecture disapproves each ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, while, such as, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => 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: 2045.0 1373.03311258 149% => OK
No of words: 387.0 270.72406181 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2842377261 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83258826459 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478036175711 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 637.2 419.366225166 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 73.3278909545 49.2860985944 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.071428571 110.228320801 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6428571429 21.698381199 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.282407019048 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112073008452 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506781918143 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183399261215 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0142540409793 0.0443174109184 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.