It seems like a terrible idea on all levels. If the problem is suspected to be fraud by those running the elections, why are they afforded the latitude to do it all over again?

It seems like it makes way more sense to keep them hands off in the process. They should be able to observe, but not do the actual work. Is it a legal thing -- where they have the right to control how it's done? Or possibly a money thing?

And if it was a process issue -- where they screwed up a bunch of the counts though some sort of misunderstanding of procedures, it would correct for this as well. I mean, these people doing the actual work at the election sites don't exactly receive tons of training. Who's to say they don't just repeat the same errors (I realize it may not be the same exact individuals but still a potential training gap in my eyes).

If big discrepancies post-Nov 3rd are detected, it should trigger these audit/recount/recertification controls, but it should all be carried out by some sort of neutral election integrity body at the federal level, which I'm inventing in my head, (kek).

Oh and by the way we see that you're using these fishy voting machines, so we're going to take a few back to the lab for DEEEEEP forensic analysis. No heads up.

I don't know, maybe coming from a job where quality is crucial, I have some respect for making sure that things get done properly. But this all seems wildly stupid to me to do it this way.