[DEFEATED] Regulating Remote Election Administration

[Cretox State]

”Overseas voter” as a citizen, who is registered to vote, of a nation which allows registered voters who are overseas to participate in national elections who has fulfilled all the requirements in national law in order to vote,

According to this definition, an overseas voter is any registered voter of a nation that allows overseas voting.

”Electorate” as the sum of all eligible voters,

This is fine, I guess. Still not certain why you need to define an electorate, but this isn't really a problem.

Coordinate hours of polling places, in this case consulates, embassies, or other sites as designated by national election officials, to ensure that overseas voters have the ability to cast their ballot,

What does coordination mean in this context? The same hours?

Reform counting standards so that votes can be scrutinized, counted, and released in compliance with previously standing legislation;

Alright, but wouldn't these standards already be in compliance with relevant standing law, by definition?

Further mandates that nations regulate which boundaries overseas voters will vote under in elections, should they exist, noting that;

1. Member nations may create or utilize “overseas constituencies” if they wish to for national elections;

Wouldn't nations already do this, though?

Instructs member nations to inform overseas voters what special requirements there are for overseas voters in terms of ballot receipt or security;

How do you decide when to use a comma and when to use a semicolon?

Requires that member states take steps to facilitate the participation of overseas voters in the elections of their home nations;

This is very vague and doesn't really do anything.

Asserts that member states who are conducting elections ought to take the following steps in order to ensure overseas voters have the ability to vote in their nation of citizenship;

1. Organize an effective method to ensure that all eligible overseas voters have the opportunity to vote, including using a postal service to facilitate voting or using consular or embassy facilities as polling places,
   
2. Organize counting centers for collated overseas votes that are able to follow the same timeline for counting as the national electorate and take into account any special requirements that are created under the terms of this law, though,
   
   
   1. Noting that member nations may choose to require receipt of overseas voters’ votes earlier than normal ballots would be received nationally, so that those votes can be counted, scrutinized, and returned on the same timeline as other voters' ballots are;

It's not a bad draft by any stretch of the imagination. It just feels like a solution looking for a problem. Fix the definition, though.

[Boston Castle]

~snip~

1. I knew that wording was if but couldn’t figure out what to do. Will adjust the definition.

2. I’m going to eliminate it. I know it was relevant to an earlier draft, but *shrug*.

3. Coordinating is supposed to mean that the same hours of the day as used in the nation voting are used abroad. So, for instance, if polls in Cretox State are open from 8 AM-7 PM, Cretoxian polls in Boston Castle would be open during the same hours (8 AM-7 PM in Boston Castle), regardless of time zones. (I honestly don’t know how to word this. Am going to try my best.)

4. No. Believe it or not, this is a provision that needs to be made. IRL, different states do it differently. Some allow members to vote in a domestic constituency, others have a single, or multiple, overseas constituencies.

5. Noted. This was to placate Banana, but np. It’s quite redundant anyways.

6. Generally: end of intro/main clauses and last sub-clauses get semi-colons, commas between intermediate sub-clauses.

[Bananaistan]

5. Noted. This was to placate Banana, but np. It’s quite redundant anyways.

OOC: These numbered responses are impossible to follow.

There's no point in placating me. I am irrevocably opposed to any WA mandates dictating anything about member states' elections.

2. I don’t understand this argument too well. It’s the same logic that allows the UN Human Rights Council irl to pass judgement on the west and include human rights luminaries like Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China. In the same way, I don’t think this res has ever required members to have elections (see clause 7).

1) You cannot require members nations to hold elections under the ideological ban rule.

2) Why should we follow this same insane logic that sees Saudi Arabia going around lecturing other nations on women's rights?

Generally what's the point anyway? Specifically why should this body be moaning about "the lack of uniform standards for the administration of elections for overseas electors might have deleterious effects on national election administration"? What are these deleterious effects?

And the whole thing still amounts to no more than telling to people on the other side of the world that they must vote in the middle of the night.

"Reform counting standards" - why? Maybe the counting standards are just grand as they are. Why should they be "reformed"?

[Boston Castle]

5. Noted. This was to placate Banana, but np. It’s quite redundant anyways.

OOC: These numbered responses are impossible to follow.

There's no point in placating me. I am irrevocably opposed to any WA mandates dictating anything about member states' elections.

2. I don’t understand this argument too well. It’s the same logic that allows the UN Human Rights Council irl to pass judgement on the west and include human rights luminaries like Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China. In the same way, I don’t think this res has ever required members to have elections (see clause 7).

1) You cannot require members nations to hold elections under the ideological ban rule.

2) Why should we follow this same insane logic that sees Saudi Arabia going around lecturing other nations on women's rights?

Generally what's the point anyway? Specifically why should this body be moaning about "the lack of uniform standards for the administration of elections for overseas electors might have deleterious effects on national election administration"? What are these deleterious effects?

And the whole thing still amounts to no more than telling to people on the other side of the world that they must vote in the middle of the night.

"Reform counting standards" - why? Maybe the counting standards are just grand as they are. Why should they be "reformed"?

Completely fine that I can’t placate you. Your opposition hasn’t stopped me yet, nor will it stop me now. I respect your opinion, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the merit in this.

As for the timing thing, I am trying to find the right verbiage for that. (See: my response to Cretox and maybe my response to you for what I’m trying to say.)

And the counting standards thing-hmm...let me review that. I think it should read methods if it’s where I think it is.

Also, the numbered responses are supposed to line up with individual comments or critiques and are supposed to be in order. It would be a pain on mobile to attempt to fill in things and I’ve chosen not to.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: “Your opposition is noted” isn’t all that much of an answer to these questions: Why should we follow this same insane logic that sees Saudi Arabia going around lecturing other nations on women's rights? Generally what's the point anyway? Specifically why should this body be moaning about "the lack of uniform standards for the administration of elections for overseas electors might have deleterious effects on national election administration"? What are these deleterious effects?

[Boston Castle]

OOC: “Your opposition is noted” isn’t all that much of an answer to these questions: Why should we follow this same insane logic that sees Saudi Arabia going around lecturing other nations on women's rights? Generally what's the point anyway? Specifically why should this body be moaning about "the lack of uniform standards for the administration of elections for overseas electors might have deleterious effects on national election administration"? What are these deleterious effects?

I think the mandatory compliance by member states principle espoused in WA law negates your concern here. On the level of this proposal, this is why clause 6 exists. On a general level, this body has always been about increasing standards to further the rights of our citizens as well as improving the multiverse.

Additionally here, this category (furtherment of democracy) and others (civil rights) have long been areas of great controversy-this hasn’t stopped us from pursuing either and not should we.

As for deleterious effects, disenfranchisement mostly. Potentially delayed results, unclear guidelines for voting are other effects.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: “Your opposition is noted” isn’t all that much of an answer to these questions: Why should we follow this same insane logic that sees Saudi Arabia going around lecturing other nations on women's rights? Generally what's the point anyway? Specifically why should this body be moaning about "the lack of uniform standards for the administration of elections for overseas electors might have deleterious effects on national election administration"? What are these deleterious effects?

I think the mandatory compliance by member states principle espoused in WA law negates your concern here. On the level of this proposal, this is why clause 6 exists. On a general level, this body has always been about increasing standards to further the rights of our citizens as well as improving the multiverse.

Additionally here, this category (furtherment of democracy) and others (civil rights) have long been areas of great controversy-this hasn’t stopped us from pursuing either and not should we.

As for deleterious effects, disenfranchisement mostly. Potentially delayed results, unclear guidelines for voting are other effects.

OOC: I am unaware of any resolutions which dictatorships are free to ignore other that the two that deal with elections. Ultimately this increases no standards nor is there mandatory compliance. Nations with no elections can safely ignore it and disenfranchise everyone.

[Boston Castle]

I think the mandatory compliance by member states principle espoused in WA law negates your concern here. On the level of this proposal, this is why clause 6 exists. On a general level, this body has always been about increasing standards to further the rights of our citizens as well as improving the multiverse.

Additionally here, this category (furtherment of democracy) and others (civil rights) have long been areas of great controversy-this hasn’t stopped us from pursuing either and not should we.

As for deleterious effects, disenfranchisement mostly. Potentially delayed results, unclear guidelines for voting are other effects.

OOC: I am unaware of any resolutions which dictatorships are free to ignore other that the two that deal with elections. Ultimately this increases no standards nor is there mandatory compliance. Nations with no elections can safely ignore it and disenfranchise everyone.

I would point you to Article IV, section 1 of GAR 130.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What's the impact of that section?

[Boston Castle]

What's the impact of that section?

If I’m reading it correctly, Article IV, Section I disapplies GAR 130 to nations where elections aren’t held. It’s the reason Clause 6 of my resolution exists.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I am unaware of any resolutions which dictatorships are free to ignore other that the two that deal with elections. Ultimately this increases no standards nor is there mandatory compliance. Nations with no elections can safely ignore it and disenfranchise everyone.

I would point you to Article IV, section 1 of GAR 130.[/quote]

What's the impact of that section?

If I’m reading it correctly, Article IV, Section I disapplies GAR 130 to nations where elections aren’t held. It’s the reason Clause 6 of my resolution exists.

Let me be clearer: Can you explain to me how pointing to GA 130 art IV s 1 refutes Banana's point?

[Boston Castle]

OOC: I am unaware of any resolutions which dictatorships are free to ignore other that the two that deal with elections. Ultimately this increases no standards nor is there mandatory compliance. Nations with no elections can safely ignore it and disenfranchise everyone.

I would point you to Article IV, section 1 of GAR 130.

If I’m reading it correctly, Article IV, Section I disapplies GAR 130 to nations where elections aren’t held. It’s the reason Clause 6 of my resolution exists.

Let me be clearer: Can you explain to me how pointing to GA 130 art IV s 1 refutes Banana's point?

It was an argument for this existing in the first place. Clearly, this body (as per GA 130) is fine regulating elections. Clearly too it is fine with saying that resolutions which regulate elections (à la GA 130) need not apply in the event that nations do not hold elections. I understand discomfort with saying that regulations on elections ought to be passed when dictatorships exist and can flout the law; what I’m arguing is that it need not matter due to the precedent set there.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It was an argument for this existing in the first place. Clearly, this body (as per GA 130) is fine regulating elections. Clearly too it is fine with saying that resolutions which regulate elections (à la GA 130) need not apply in the event that nations do not hold elections. I understand discomfort with saying that regulations on elections ought to be passed when dictatorships exist and can flout the law; what I’m arguing is that it need not matter due to the precedent set there.

Why does it not matter? Just because bad things were done in the past does not justify bad things being done now.

[Boston Castle]

It was an argument for this existing in the first place. Clearly, this body (as per GA 130) is fine regulating elections. Clearly too it is fine with saying that resolutions which regulate elections (à la GA 130) need not apply in the event that nations do not hold elections. I understand discomfort with saying that regulations on elections ought to be passed when dictatorships exist and can flout the law; what I’m arguing is that it need not matter due to the precedent set there.

Why does it not matter? Just because bad things were done in the past does not justify bad things being done now.

It need not matter, and it doesn’t, because the category still exists. And if we extend that logic just a little further we can say, for instance, why allow nations with poor environmental quality the ability to have a say over environmental law? My point being: if we only allow nations with already impeccable standards to make the law and have a say in it, we all have shortcomings and will fail it.

As for the standard set by Glen-Rhodes in GA 130, I think it’s legitimately necessary to put that sort of caveat at the end. Furthermore, in the spirit of that legislation, it is completely within the prerogative of this Assembly to legislate on elections. (I’m actually being serious, definitely not flaming with this but.) If you think it is a bad thing, my advice would be to repeal that legislation. Until then, I see no reason that we can’t adopt that precedent and keep it as binding-that nations without elections need not follow these laws (so long as the res allows for that exception) and that we can legislate on elections.

[Bananaistan]

It need not matter, and it doesn’t, because the category still exists.

OOC: Most resolutions in the category have nothing to do with elections: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=381752#furtherment_of_democracy

And if we extend that logic just a little further we can say, for instance, why allow nations with poor environmental quality the ability to have a say over environmental law?

No we can't say that. It's a false analogy. All member nations are obliged to comply with all environmental legislation. So those who are against environmental standards can vote against but ultimately they will have to comply. With elections, those who are for or against democracy have a say even though only those who actually practice democracy will have to comply.

My point being: if we only allow nations with already impeccable standards to make the law and have a say in it, we all have shortcomings and will fail it.

With every other resolution in the category other than those elections and voting ones, and every other active resolution in every other category, all member nations must comply. Everyone's standards are forced upwards.

As for the standard set by Glen-Rhodes in GA 130, I think it’s legitimately necessary to put that sort of caveat at the end. Furthermore, in the spirit of that legislation, it is completely within the prerogative of this Assembly to legislate on elections. (I’m actually being serious, definitely not flaming with this but.) If you think it is a bad thing, my advice would be to repeal that legislation. Until then, I see no reason that we can’t adopt that precedent and keep it as binding-that nations without elections need not follow these laws (so long as the res allows for that exception) and that we can legislate on elections.

The WA has often and regularly erred in the past. This is no reason to continue passing bad legislation.

You don't have the option of keeping that "precedent". It is the rules that we cannot mandate elections in every member nation. Given this constraint, many of us do not see the point in faffing about around the edges of voting and elections and ultimately achieving nothing. This proposal does the same as the rest - it expands the mandate to the sum total of zero people who do not already have it. It does nothing substantial about disenfranchisement because the GA can do nothing substantial about disenfranchisement.

[Boston Castle]

Clause 6 has been eliminated.

[Boston Castle]

Submitted, withdrawn due to a punctuation error, and then submitted last night and withdrawn this morning halfway to the queue. Am going to assess next steps. ON HOLD for now, probable overhaul (again) of the idea to be more expansive to alternative forms of voting (i.e. not same day, in-person voting).

The niche policy posting is...probably not over.

[Boston Castle]

OOC: Bump for the 3rd draft. No longer on hold unless this starts to annoy me again.

[Boston Castle]

And reserving this post for edits.

Whereas issues regarding in-person voting are best left to individual member states and that issues of remote voting are best addressed by uniform standards, be it enacted as follows:

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Some quick notes before I'm out the door.

”election day” refers to the day in which voters are prescribed by law to vote in an election or election(s);

Dictionary definition, doesn't need to be defined.

”absentee voter” refers to any voter who lives in their nation of citizenship who votes in advance of the date prescribed by law for an election;

How are they absent if they're present and are submitting their vote?

”expatriate voter” refers to any voter who votes in their nation of citizenship who lives in a nation which is not their nation of citizenship and chooses to vote in the former;

I suggest rewording that as "while living in a nation they are not a citizen of".

”mail ballot” refers to a ballot which utilizes a postal service for the purpose of obtaining and returning a ballot;

Dictionary definition, unnecessary.

”e-voting” refers to any method of voting which utilizes a technological interface by which a ballot is cast remotely.

Dictionary definition, unnecessary.

All member nations are required to employ the same methods of counting for all ballots cast by absentee voters and expatriate voters.

Even if the expatriate voters vote on the voting day via "e-voting"? Shouldn't "all votes submitted before the deadline need to be counted the same way" be much more comprehensive?

Member nations may require that ballots cast by these voters be counted separately from ballots cast by voters who choose to not employ alternative methods or who vote on election day.

They tend to be, but why?

All member nations must make clear to its citizens who request to vote as expatriates or absentee what special requirements there are, if any, for their ballot to be counted.

...but you just said they need to be counted the same way? Or are you trying to say something about deadlines by which the vote needs to be submitted to count? Why are you trying to be the general mandating the colour of soldiers' underpants?

Member nations are allowed to enact the following restrictions on absentee voters who utilize mail ballots:

Okay, I'll be honest, the whole "mail ballots" thing sounds weird and creepy, and you've apparently never heard of pre-election voting period, which is really commonly used here, where you basically have an election voting thing set up somewhere (like post offices, libraries, malls, etc.), where you go to vote, just like if you were voting on the day of the election, except your voting coupon is sealed into an envelope with your voter registration info (need to prove your identity to vote) and not opened until the day of the election, and you leave it there rather than having to mail it somewhere. It's secured and transported by the election organizers, lowering the chance of something happening to it.

This is because on the actual day of election you need to go vote to the location nearest to where you are registered as an inhabitant, you can't just walk into whatever election location to vote, your name needs to be found in the printed list to let you vote. If you're registered in a city hundreds of miles away, but are visiting relatives or whatnot, it's easier to vote before the election day because that you can do wherever, regardless of where you're registered.

1. witness of ballots by another sapient being who can affix a mark to the ballot,
2. time restrictions on when ballots may be requested such that there may be a fixed date, communicated to absentee and expatriate voters, whereby ballots must be received, and
3. restrictions on who may vote remotely such as requiring military service or severe illness before a sapient being can utilize a mail ballot.

Just say "person" instead of "sapient being", but these should be left out entirely, really. Underpants category.

The same restrictions which states are allowed to enact on absentee voters who utilize mail ballots may also be enacted on expatriate voters who utilize mail ballots.

The mention of "states" there makes this sound like it's plagiarized from something to do with USA elections.

Absentee and expatriate voters must receive a ballot that is compliant with their request and matches the election day ballot of the electoral division in which they are registered to vote.

...what? Over here you just write the number of the candidate you want to vote, and it's automatically counted for the election in your registered locale. (If you live permanently outside of Finland, you can vote in presidential and EU parliament elections, I think, but others would need you to be a member of a certain electoral region, so you might not be able to vote in them.)

The following provisions may be enacted in regards to expatriate voters:
a. Member nations may create an “overseas constituency” of all expatriate voters where their collated votes may count towards representation in a national assembly or otherwise.

What, why? Nation A has no effect on people living in Nation B, because they're in Nation B's jurisdiction, so why should there be a separate constituency for them?

Member nations may bar expatriate voters from participating in regional or local elections.

Suggested edit. If they've chosen to leave the nation, why should they have any say in what goes on in it?

All member nations must make clear to its citizens who utilize e-voting what processes are used to ensure their vote’s anonymity and how their vote is counted.

This sounds like you want them to explain what exactly they do so that hackers can exploit it.

Member nations are allowed to enact the following restrictions on those who choose to utilize e-voting:
a. use of a form of national identification in order to ensure that a sapient being votes no more than once,

Why national identification? Isn't it enough that you're not counting more than one vote per person, no matter how they manage to identify themselves?

use of certain platforms that are not open for corruption or influence by malign actors, and

No such thing exists.

time restrictions on when one can access an electronic ballot.

Common sense/underpants category.

All of this is needless micromanagement specifically designed to fit RL USA elections.

[Untecna]

"Opposed, our nations should keep the right to run elections the way they want. Chuckie, get over here!"

[Modessia]

Opposed. The WA has no right to dictate elections.

[Bananaistan]

Whereas issues regarding in-person voting are best left to individual member states that issues of absentee voting are best addressed by uniform standards,

"What are these issues and why are they "best addressed by uniform standards"?"

[Boston Castle]

Whereas issues regarding in-person voting are best left to individual member states that issues of absentee voting are best addressed by uniform standards,

"What are these issues and why are they "best addressed by uniform standards"?"

"Notably ballot security, privacy in the polling booth, processing. Some of the issues regarding in-person voting have been addressed elsewhere in previous law."

OOC: And jeez that first sentence was ungrammatical. Well, that's the reason the edits post exists!

[Boston Castle]

OOC post. Some quick notes before I'm out the door.
Dictionary definition, doesn't need to be defined.

There's a reason for it later in the resolution. I occasionally have trouble with implied meaning and making things as clear as possible in this resolution is, to me, essential. What's the use of legalese if it's inaccessible to all but lawyers?

How are they absent if they're present and are submitting their vote?

It's the same formulation as is defined elsewhere, especially in my home country of the US. They're absent in that they aren't going to the polls, for one reason or another, on Election Day.

I suggest rewording that as "while living in a nation they are not a citizen of".

Noted, that's actually a good catch.

Dictionary definition, unnecessary.

Combine "mail voting" and "e-voting" criticisms: again, I don't think there's a problem in defining these terms when they a) may be unclear to some and b) could lead to confusion, especially since the latter concept (e-voting) is probably not super well known but to the Estonian contingent to NationStates.

Even if the expatriate voters vote on the voting day via "e-voting"? Shouldn't "all votes submitted before the deadline need to be counted the same way" be much more comprehensive?

Eh, you have a point there. I'll consider it.

They tend to be, but why?

As I understand it, it's really due, especially in the US, to differing requirements for those ballots. As someone who has only voted absentee (thank you being a college student) and being a bit of a knob when it comes to voting (three write-ins in only three ballots cast), I know a little about what they have to do. In my home state, up until very recently, I needed a witness to my ballot--getting a witness isn't hard, but they have to double check the ballot for that and then to make sure I filled it out correctly, that sort of thing.

...but you just said they need to be counted the same way? Or are you trying to say something about deadlines by which the vote needs to be submitted to count? Why are you trying to be the general mandating the colour of soldiers' underpants?

The latter. I don't think any of us thinks that mail votes show up instantaneously wherever they need to end up, whether a registrar's office or to a returning officer or whatever.

Okay, I'll be honest, the whole "mail ballots" thing sounds weird and creepy, and you've apparently never heard of pre-election voting period, which is really commonly used here, where you basically have an election voting thing set up somewhere (like post offices, libraries, malls, etc.), where you go to vote, just like if you were voting on the day of the election, except your voting coupon is sealed into an envelope with your voter registration info (need to prove your identity to vote) and not opened until the day of the election, and you leave it there rather than having to mail it somewhere. It's secured and transported by the election organizers, lowering the chance of something happening to it.

This is because on the actual day of election you need to go vote to the location nearest to where you are registered as an inhabitant, you can't just walk into whatever election location to vote, your name needs to be found in the printed list to let you vote. If you're registered in a city hundreds of miles away, but are visiting relatives or whatnot, it's easier to vote before the election day because that you can do wherever, regardless of where you're registered.

I'm classing mail-in balloting as different from in-person absentee voting for a reason: less scrutiny during the process of casting a vote. I know that in-person advance voting is common. Hell, even if I weren't from the US, foreign outlets were reporting on the lines in places like Georgia! I'm not from Georgia, but I am from a state that did early in-person. And while I get that that's an option for a good chunk of the population, it isn't for everyone and personally, I'm of the opinion that we should provide as many avenues for voter participation as possible.

Just say "person" instead of "sapient being", but these should be left out entirely, really. Underpants category.

"Sapient being" is the form generally preferred by this assembly, I'll use it.

The mention of "states" there makes this sound like it's plagiarized from something to do with USA elections.

It's not and I generally resent the fact that you would think that. It's just a form of saying "nation" without doing so. The legal form of a nation is the state, the cultural form of the state is the "nation". It shouldn't be controversial to use one over the other.

...what? Over here you just write the number of the candidate you want to vote, and it's automatically counted for the election in your registered locale. (If you live permanently outside of Finland, you can vote in presidential and EU parliament elections, I think, but others would need you to be a member of a certain electoral region, so you might not be able to vote in them.)

And even though y'all have chosen to go with proportional representation, there are still nations in this assembly and otherwise that utilize some form of FPTP representation. It's perfectly necessary to mention it.

What, why? Nation A has no effect on people living in Nation B, because they're in Nation B's jurisdiction, so why should there be a separate constituency for them?

This is really not a controversial formulation. Italy does it, for instance. Colombia has an expatriate constituency as well. While I understand the consternation, I don't understand why giving nations in this multiverse this freedom is necessarily bad when it happens RL without a hitch.

Suggested edit. If they've chosen to leave the nation, why should they have any say in what goes on in it?

There's an issue on here that considers that question and an option is to let the citizens do it because "I might return...someday!". Same reasoning applies here. However, on a less meme-y note, I think it's disenfranchisement to not allow people to vote because of where they happen to be living when an election comes around.

This sounds like you want them to explain what exactly they do so that hackers can exploit it.

Not at all. I'm not saying they should necessarily expose all processes, but certainly saying "we use end-to-end encryption to ensure your identity is safe" isn't a bad thing, no? Especially considering that, at least in the US and UK, ballots can contain no personal identification? (And on E-voting, Estonia redacts a citizen's info so that the ballot is "anonymous" to counters.)

Why national identification? Isn't it enough that you're not counting more than one vote per person, no matter how they manage to identify themselves?

Because every nation RL has a form of national identification, be that a Social Security card, NHS card, etc. This really isn't a negative thing.

No such thing exists.

Noted, but I think cyber-security is something we ought to concern ourselves with.

Common sense/underpants category.

Again, it's not. Different states (in the international sense since this seemed to be a concern of yours) may choose to do things differently in regards to the time that ballots can be reviewed-even online. I understand your concern, that doesn't make it valid or "common sense".

All of this is needless micromanagement specifically designed to fit RL USA elections.

In my opinion, it's not, and while I think including/amending things so it fits more categories is all well and good, I'm also not seeing anyone volunteer help in terms of election admin for remote voting elsewhere.