This article, beyond being flamebait and inappropriate for HN, reflects a fundamentally poor understanding of the U.S. government. The comment about national elections, for example - the United States has <i>zero</i> national elections except for the meeting of the electoral college in December of presidential election years.
The number one threat to election integrity is change, begetting chaos.<p>We must lock down the rules during an election cycle. To only be changed under extreme circumstances. With those parameters also spelled out.<p>We must also slow roll changes to election administration. Any change whatsoever is disruptive and will disenfranchise at least as much as its intended to help.<p>There are many, many needed changes. And I'm only cautioning about administration, gear, procedures. I still advocate ambitious, aspirational democratic reforms, voting rights, etc.<p>Source: Decade working as poll worker, election integrity activist, lobbying. Started as a Black Box Voting style firebrand, transformed into a Good Government style reformer.
This list misses the biggest problem of them all. The two party system with entrenched interests that just don't reflect the population.<p>In many other countries, parties are routinely bootstrapped from the ground up and the big dogs need to form alliances for majorities. This also has it's flaws but also solves many problems.<p>Imagine crooks from Republican led state governments gerrymandering North Carolina but ultimately losing majority vote to Outer banks party because the entrenched ruling party don't give fucks about the outer banks flooding due to climate change.
I understand #2 and #3 (and #9) to be features, not bugs.<p>The lack of national standards or national election management body create a system that's especially resilient, because the decentralized, diverse system can handle many failures and still produce something pretty close to a representative result.