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; 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 121, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...eplaced with computerized voting system so as to improve efficiency basis three reasons....
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 213, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ever, the lecturer says that efficiency cant be established with computerized voting...
^^^^
Line 1, column 266, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...lished with computerized voting systems also. Firstly, the reading states that th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 426, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... states, the computerized voting system cant be considered as an error-free system. ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, while, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1603.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04088050314 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64395102793 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455974842767 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 508.5 419.366225166 121% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.333374612 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.5 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64285714286 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.324034262503 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143608760245 0.0996497079465 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0598512737245 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218755112694 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0177451130648 0.0443174109184 40% => 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: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.