I am grateful to those members who have beaten me to the punch on a number of questions. There are some questions I would want to ask.
First, in relation to this:
Such a thing should be well avoided since the entire Commission must certify the supervisors' results before the results are posted. If the supervisors announce falsified results regardless, a criminal Court case would likely be afoot for gross misconduct, as well as the Commission posting the actual certified results.
Of course, if your hypothetical scenario is that it's the entire commission working to falsify the results, rather than solely the supervisors, then I'd also be in on it by definition of the scenario and would have no further action to take.
My understanding from the Commission's Rules is that, provided that challenged ballots would not change the result, it is open to supervisors to certify results (and, indeed, required of them). Is there some respect in which the practice of the Commission deviates from that? It might be that two issues are being elided in practice, giving opportunity to challenge and certification, but I wish to be clear.
On the suggestion of including processes for specific irregularities in the Rules, do you think that is something you would pursue or support if a Commissioner?
On the question of absences, I think that absences being declared by the absent person would seem uncontroversial, the real risk to my mind is around people being declared absent by someone else. In relation to that issue, having served on the Commission and, in particular, as Chief Election Commissioner, what, broadly, would you think could be an appropriate mechanism for those declarations? To my mind, it seems that the options would essentially be: the CEC declares; some number (not being a majority) of ECs declare; or a majority of the ECs declare.
Having regard to the practical needs of the Commission, from your experience, what constraints could be appropriate, in terms of matters like, for example, days without logging in or similar?