[Pfhreak]

I'm aware that these changes were made.

I'm challenging the idea that these things reduce voter integrity.

You seem to think it's obvious and axiomatic that these processes meaningfully improve voter integrity. Do you have evidence that they make things more secure? Or could it be they are security theater?

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Do you have evidence that they make things more secure?

If that’s your question, where is the evidence that Krebs used?

I gave you examples that under the pretext of Covid, governors removed verification requirements that state legislatures had pre-determined. I can’t help that your hand waving away decades old requirements.

But if you’re gonna ask me for proof, where is yours? show me one way this election was made MORE secure, please.

[Pfhreak]

> decades old requirements.

Old voting requirements does not mean good or secure voting requirements. In many ways, the vote is less secure because these requirements likely exclude many valid votes.

> show me one way this election was made MORE secure

Efforts to drive voter turnout were clearly effective. Many more people voted this time than in 2016. (And yes, turnout is a parameter in election security. There are many efforts to undermine elections by depressing turnout.)

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Efforts to drive voter turnout were clearly effective.

That is in no way an answer to the question of how elections were made more secure.

[Pfhreak]

If you believe that voter access isn't a clear part of election security, you need to do more research on the space.