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 introduces the topic of a voting system implemented in the US. More specifically, the author discusses the reasons for replacing the traditional voting approach with the more advanced and efficient computerized voting system. On the contrary, the lecturer disagrees with the remarks of the writer and points out the drawbacks of a computer-based voting system.
In the reading, the author begins by the statement that in traditional voting system there is a high chance of accidental votes as voters need to mark in the name of their candidate after going through a long sheet of a ballot paper. So, the writer insists on the use of computerized voting where the name of the candidate is easily displayed on the screen. The lecturer, however, disagrees with this point of view. The speaker states that among voters, there are voters who are unable to afford and use computers. Those voters are likely to cast wrong votes due to fear of technology.
The author claims that in the addition to eradication of human error during the vote count, expenses for human resources can be minimized with the use of a computerized voting system. Again, the professor believes that this is not accurate. He suggests that the program used for vote counts are created by humans and the consequence of so-called "human error" is higher in computerized voting. The speaker also adds on by stating that recovery of votes if lost is difficult.
Another reason why the author feels the reason to replace the traditional voting approach is the effective use of complex technology in the banking and communication sector. The professor in the listening passage is concerned about the writer's argument. The speaker states that the technology used for the banking and communication sector operates and improves on a daily basis and thus is reliable. But the computerized voting system is not used on daily basis and hasn't been improved to be absolutely reliable.
| 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 |
- Eco Ceritified Essay 3
- 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
- A teacher s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught 66
- Eco Ceritified Wood 3
- 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 7, column 237, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...istening passage is concerned about the writers argument. The speaker states that the t...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 467, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...g system is not used on daily basis and hasnt been improved to be absolutely reliable...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, thus, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1648.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10216718266 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82945714194 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486068111455 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 529.2 419.366225166 126% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2415649015 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1875 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0625 7.06452816374 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.274770412102 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0937142706531 0.0996497079465 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060748083087 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175353366858 0.162205337803 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0239647510478 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.