This particular role of the software doesn't sound particularly critical, in the sense that if it caught fire tomorrow, elections would still happen in the same way, maybe with more human labour involved on the planning side.
But sure, I agree that it's stupid to have every municipality and polity, down to the five mud farmers living in unincorporated East Mudsville, Nowhere figuring out how to do their elections in their own special way. Perhaps it would be good to look into how Elections Canada[1] does things?
[1] It has the unfortunate side effect of providing federal oversight over elections, which is not something that republicans seem to be interested in this year.
No this is false. Imagine if tomorrow all GOP poll workers were 'dismissed' due to a technical glitch and lo and behold a democrat one a formerly red district. Or vice versa.
This opens up the election to unnecessary allegations of fraud.
Unnecessary because of how simple this is to manage.
Then there would be procedures for redress and emergency injunctions that could be made, with enough time to do so.. The situation would have to be unfucked by hand. 'The computer said so' does not overturn election rules.
This kind of scheduling is not critical, because it happens early enough that you can actually correct mistakes with it without compromising the election.
That's the whole point of defense in depth. Compromising this layer does not actually break the system. Because any failures from it are both visible and redressable.
But sure, I agree that it's stupid to have every municipality and polity, down to the five mud farmers living in unincorporated East Mudsville, Nowhere figuring out how to do their elections in their own special way. Perhaps it would be good to look into how Elections Canada[1] does things?
[1] It has the unfortunate side effect of providing federal oversight over elections, which is not something that republicans seem to be interested in this year.