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 explained why the computerized voting system can not replace the traditional voting system. There are the following three reasons.
First of all, not everyone one can use computers correctly. Some people do not have access to computers, some people are not used of computers, and some people are even scared of this new technology. If the voters do not know how to use a computer, how do you expect them to finish the voting process through computers? This directly refutes the reading passage which states that computerized voting is easier by just touching the screen.
Secondly, computers may make mistakes as the people do. As computers are programmed by the human beings, thus erros are inevitable in the computer system. Problems caused by computer voting systems may be more serious than those caused by people. A larger number of votes might be miss counted or even removed from the system. Furthermore, it would take more energy to recount the votes. Again this contradicts what is stated in the reading which stated that only people will make mistakes in counting.
Thirdly, computerized voting system is not reliable because it has not reached a stable status. People trust computers to conduct banking transactions because the computerized banking system is being used daily and frecuently and has been stable. How ever, the voting does not happen as often as banking thus the computerized voting system has not been proved to be totally reliable.
All in all, not everyone can use a computer properly, computer cause mistakes and computerized voting system is not reliable are the main reasons why computerized voting system can not replace the traditional voting system.
| 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 |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 63
- 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
- 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
- Humans have long been fascinated by elephants the largest land animal in the modern world Social animals that live in herds elephants are native to both Africa and Asia Their large ears long trunk and long life span have made elephants one of the most cap 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 248, Rule ID: HOW_EVER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'however'?
Suggestion: However
...ily and frecuently and has been stable. How ever, the voting does not happen as often as...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => 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: 1434.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17689530686 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63928299934 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501805054152 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 451.8 419.366225166 108% => 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: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.779588209 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.625 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3125 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3125 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281616288158 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103188132133 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0869594357787 0.0662205650399 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194315979183 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0621576908276 0.0443174109184 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.