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 states that the traditional inefficient voting system to be replaced by the computerrized voting system and the author gives three reasons for support. However, the
professor explains that the compuetrized voting system is more flawed than the traditional voting system and refutes each of the author's reasons.
FIrst, the reading claims that there is chance of wrong voting by person on ballot paper, doe to poor eysight or human error. However, the professor refutes the statement by pointing out the issue of computer illetracy in the country, According to the professor the only people who are familiar with the usage of computer will be able to vote and others will be discoyraged to vote due to fear of
technology.
Second, the passage posists that there can be error in counting of vote due to missing a ballot and repeating the process again is tedious task, which will consume time and effort. THe professor refutes this point by saying that as computers are programmed by humans they can also make mistakes, In addition to it the professor points out that the mistake in mannal counting will be of few hundred votes but that of computer will be of thousands of votes.
Finally, the reading says that as we trust our daily banking transactions to the computer and also handling of sensitive information same can be applied by the government for vationg. The professor opposes this point by comparing the frequency of usage of techonogly in banking and voting, banking system are used daily and voting system are to be used once in two years,by comparing this the professor questions the safety of using technology in voting.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 177, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the compuetrized...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Professor
...ee reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the compuetrized voting s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 397, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll be discoyraged to vote due to fear of technology. Second, the passage ...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Technology
...e discoyraged to vote due to fear of technology. Second, the passage posists th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 23, column 371, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , by
... system are to be used once in two years,by comparing this the professor questions ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, second, so, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1405.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07220216606 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59386721232 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509025270758 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 429.3 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 34.0 21.2450331126 160% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.6572577825 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.625 110.228320801 159% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.625 21.698381199 160% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.223303215551 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109433887061 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655815668961 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146833461162 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567553774596 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 13.3589403974 148% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.0289183223 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.72 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 10.498013245 149% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.