The better for the party that happens to be in power to keep itself in power, by controlling the system by which it might lose that power.
Just look at California to see how this works out. The Democraps have successfully corrupted our electoral system intentionally to make it easier for Democraps to stay in power, more difficult for non-Democraps to challenge them.
Did you know that California has more registered voters than citizens. Why is that allowed?
California is also first state that legalize solicitation of ballots, where third party is allowed to collect and deliver voting ballots. So these "third-party" organizations go to nursing homes and churches, harvest ballots from old people and transport it to the polling place. Nothing prevents them from changing the ballots, or disposing ballots they don't like, and there is no mechanism that can prevent that from happening.
In 2018, California Republican David Valadao had 5000 vote lead over challenger Democrat T.J. Cox. The margin was large enough that media even called the win for Valadao, but late ballots delivered by the third party changed the result in favor of Democrat who won by 862 votes. If it happen once, maybe it's coincidence, but... Since California allowed ballot harvesting, Democrats won every single Congressional seat in Orange County that has been Republican stronghold for decades. Still coincidence?
The same goes with changing definitions of words, like "marriage". The meaning of marriage never changed, because where procreation, in principal, is impossible, the marriage is irrelevant, and not needed. When I say "in principal", that means - related to definition of. If an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of word apple, it doesn't change what apple is, in principal. The reason is means by concept of the definition, we also make laws by means of definitions, and if you don't know how to operate with respect to those definitions, you can't make a law, or interpret the law. (i.e. imagine having a Justice that doesn't know the meaning of the word women). The married person become impotent, or infertile, or old, his condition , in principal, doesn't change the definition of the marriage... because between mam and a woman, in principal, the procreation is always possible, and it's that possibility which gave rights to the institution of marriage in the first place, as a matter of law and government. But when procreation is impossible, in case of two males, or two females, and we're not talking about "accidentally" impossible, because it's impossible in principal, than marriage cannot be understood apart from procreation. Once you change the definition, you in fact, destroy the institution, and the necessity for it. The only reason marriage existed in human society thru civilizations was to regulate from social point of view the
obligation and responsibility related to procreation.
www.ncaa.org
www.carolinajournal.com
nypost.com
