Thanks for the question.
Let's be clear; I'm the executive director of an anti-poverty organization. I am not someone who spends her time looking at how to build good electoral systems. That being said, I think it's kind of obvious. If you're trying to protect the dignity interests of people and you think about their circumstances—people are combatting pretty adverse circumstances who might otherwise avail themselves of vouch voting. If they've made it to the point where they're ready and able to vote, you come up with a system that's simple, straightforward, and easy to execute for everyone—not only for the person who's going to vote but also for the people receiving the person who's going to vote.
I tried to do a bit of exploration before coming here. Others of you have seen in the media the references to what's done in Australia, a country where I lived for a couple of years up in Queensland. They have a very simple, very straightforward way of dealing with it. I'll read to you a quote, “To vote in Queensland, all an Australian needs to do is stroll into a polling booth,”—and I imagine some of them would be barefoot—“state that they do not have proper identification, and sign a declaration confirming their identity, which is later checked against the electoral roll.”
That seems pretty neat, tidy, straightforward, and simple. There's something very dignified about it. You arrive in your polling station, you say who you are, you swear an oath—it might be a legal oath of some sort—and you move forward with your vote.