So, .. only if the system is gamed to favour the affluent that can take a day off and have well serviced voting areas then?
FWiW I'm an outsider of the US election system, it's a hot mess with multiple shortcomings that restrict franchise .. and the US Republicans appear to be more skilled at restricting access to democracy to particular demographics.
That's genuinely a horrible argument and there is no redeeming quality about single day voting. And you're implying electronic machines are being hacked, a claim for which you have no evidence.
The only thing that makes me doubt electronic voting is the relative lack of distributed counting and thus audit-ability.
That said, I rank conspiracy theories on how many people would be involved in carrying it out, and the idea of a malicious voting machine system capable of having votes altered would take too many knowing participants at various levels of the tool chain.
I would welcome learning more or else implementing more "spot audits" of results in order to minimize the likelihood of any changing of votes.
How many people do you think it took for VW to produce fake engine emission results?
The weakness in your ranking mechanism is you think you have an idea of the number of people needed. To paraphrase Feynman: You mustn’t fool yourself and you are the easiest one to fool.
My own heuristic is expect some fraud or error in every system. The more there is an incentive for fraud the more likely there is fraud. It need not be partisan: could be something like the postal worker hiding mail instead of delivering it. Not finding some minor level of fraud is like a “100% voted for Saddam” announcement—not likely true.
FWiW I'm an outsider of the US election system, it's a hot mess with multiple shortcomings that restrict franchise .. and the US Republicans appear to be more skilled at restricting access to democracy to particular demographics.