Both the text and the lecture talk about the subject of computerized voting systems. While the reading passage defends that it might be a good option for future American votings, judging the current system to be inefficient and innacurate, the professor does not share the same opinion. Each of them present three arguments of why they sustain their points.

First of all, the article argues that, if a citizen has bad eyesight, he might be confused when voting in the traditional manner. That may happen due to the mark they must do on their sheet: it is so small that the voter can accidentally vote for the wrong candidate. With a computer, it is less likely that a person makes mistakes when using a touch screen to vote for their candidate. The professor, on the other hand, states that, while this might be true for people familiarized with computers, the ones who have not had access to them might find them even more confusing. Citizens who cannot afford a computer or simply do not know how to use it will likely have complications on voting day.

Secondly, there is the counting votes factor. The text argues that, when people count votes, they will certainly make mistakes. And, if someone detects an error and demands a recount, that can be very expensive for the government. Computers can do this job automatically, having fewer chances of mistakes. The lecturer does not agree with this claim, stating that, even though computers are automated, they are still programmed by people, who can make tremendous errors while doing so. Accidently, thousands of votes can not be counted, for example. Furthermore, due to the lack of printed certification in this system, a recount is nearly impossible.

Lastly, the article exemplifies that computerized voting is considered too risky by many because of not trusting computers for such delicate tasks. But, it states that society trusts it for a lot else, including very sensitive topics, such as banking. So there is no sense in not trusting them to the voting system. The professor replies to that argument stating that this trust in computers is built over time, and usually on programs that are used on a daily basis. The voting system is, at best, used twice a year. Therefore, it cannot be improved every day as the financial software.

In conclusion, the lecture supports the claim that it does not make sense to install computerized voting in America, due to the fact that computers are not universally handled by society, the possibility of human error in programming, and the justified mistrust of computers.