Dan - I do appreciate this question but think it may not be quite that simple.  I would agree that the on the surface it looks like easier/harder.  But to many on the Republican side, and I think some who view themselves as honest arbiters and not just partisans, it looks more like "too laissez-faire/too easy to game" vs. "more controlled and harder to game."  I suspect it's not that wide a gap, and I am aware of gerrymandering, something started with Republicans but now is also widely-practiced by Democrats (we see that with the district that keeps electing straight-up moron Sheila Jackson Lee in Houston).  She's abusive to her staff and frequently makes statements at the "bizarrely disconnected" level that rivals Taylor-Greene or Boebert but from the other side.  

So while I generally see your point, and I think it has some very real roots in history, I'm not at all sure that that it's really that simple today.  In short, there are and were rules about how election policies and even locations could or could not be changed.  Some of those rules required legislative votes but didn't get it with COVID being the excuse.  Those decisions lent themselves toward questioning of the sort that spawned something like the idiocy of Jan. 6.  I'm not a supporter of what went down there.  Nor am I a supporter of the "lack of details" approaches that people like Giuliani or Lindell took when presenting ideas to the public.  They made themselves look like fools.  And it's too bad for Giuliani who was so much of a better mayor for NYC than were either Ed Koch or David Dinkins that he ought to be remembered better.  But because of these late-career mistakes, he will not be.