You could choose to undermine election security because you believe it's not necessary, or that the current methods and structures are broken to the point of uselessness or causing more problems than they solve.
You could also choose to undermine election security because you want to create gaps in security and accountability that you and your buddies can exploit to affect election results.
As bad as this is, the democracy in USA is well beyond gamed at this point. Returning to the previous status quo would be little improvement. It is a legacy system in much need of maintenance.
I would say this instead "The Federal Gov is making it easier for States to game the system".
>I would say this instead "The Federal Gov is making it easier for States to game the system".
How is "game the system" not the same as "undermining election security"?
It's a (somewhat meaningless) nuance of intent.
You could choose to undermine election security because you believe it's not necessary, or that the current methods and structures are broken to the point of uselessness or causing more problems than they solve.
You could also choose to undermine election security because you want to create gaps in security and accountability that you and your buddies can exploit to affect election results.
the latter is anyone can hack the system, because security undermined, the former is states can hack the system.
As bad as this is, the democracy in USA is well beyond gamed at this point. Returning to the previous status quo would be little improvement. It is a legacy system in much need of maintenance.
Yes true, but the GOP is hoping this change will end those pesky lawsuits so they do not have to pretend they care about fair elections.
Well, some states, at least.
Looking in TFA for support of:
- in-person voting,
- on hard-copy ballots,
- on election day,
- with systemic audits.
The quest continues.