It's not the case. With or without the feature, it's almost same difficulty for BM to vote in workers (when most of other voters/stake holders are rational). But with the new feature, it's harder for attackers to vote in their worker(s), so more secure.
Some people may ask what's an attack? Create one or more worker(s) which will take effect (get funds) immediately and vote in it without any explanation why it should be voted in.
^^ this!
^^ that!
I was aware of this BUT removing the negative vote makes it much easier for an exchanges to vote workers in, if they so wish.
Before we collectively could vote against it and remove such workers...not anymore.
So 'more secure' in this regard is true, but it is not more secure in general.
No.. it's not easier or harder for an exchange to do so, before the hard fork, although we can vote against an exchange's worker, the exchange can vote against all other workers, and/or create a new worker.
At this moment, exchanges has too much power, we can just hope them don't act bad. One stake votes for one committee member could be an option to limit exchanges' power. With this, the committee can at least disable worker pay.