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.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt
on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading passage describes how computerized voting system would lead to more efficient and accurate election results. The lecture, on the other hand, refutes the logic given in the passage, and explains why computerized method cannot replace the traditional system. There are the following three reasons.
Firstly, the passage asserts that computerized voting machines will prevent voters from mistakenly voting for wrong candidates as the voting process using computers would be far simple and convenient than the traditional method. In addition to this, the texts of the computers can be adjusted to larger fonts which will be convenient for people with bad eye sight. However, the professor explains that although it will make the process easier for tech-savvy people, it will create greater barriers for people who are not used to computers. This change in voting method might even discourage some potential voters to vote.
Secondly, the concept given in the passage that machines will produce accurate election results is unreliable. Professor explains that introducing machines in the system might eradicate one form of human-error, but it does not eliminate the possibility of human errors made in the programming of machines. If machines create a blunder in the election counting, the degree of mistake will be far greater than any miscount by the traditional method. On top of it, any mistake made by the human count, although time-consuming and expensive, can be rechecked and amended. But once a computer malfunctions, it might not be possible to retract and correct it. To top it off, all the records of votes might get lost for good.
Finally, the passage argues that huge amount of transactions and sensitive information are being handled every day by complex computerized methods and hence computerized voting system should also be reliable. This argument is not correct. The computerized methods of bank transactions and communications have been perfected to its current state through years and years of trial and error. The elections, however, only takes place once or twice a year, which is not frequent enough to develop a trusted, efficient computerized method.
So to conclude, the lecture successfully debates the reasons given in the reading passage in support of the shift from traditional to digital mode of election. In short, computers being not accessible to everyone, not being completely reliable and error free are the reasons why this method cannot replace the traditional procedure.
| 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
- Television advertising directed toward young children aged two to five should not be allowed 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 348, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ugh years and years of trial and error. The elections, however, only takes place on...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39808917197 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88226413598 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550955414013 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 419.366225166 126% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1495382717 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.071428571 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4285714286 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85714285714 7.06452816374 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177822848281 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0605094297614 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0571658351733 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0927463510357 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0515193481718 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.