I have two questions regarding the election of the deputies to the supreme people's assembly in the DPRK.
In the English translation of the nation's constitution I'm using (article 34.) it says:
The Supreme People's Assembly is composed of deputies elected on the basis of
universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.
And in the translation of the law document Deputy Elections for People's Assemblies at Each Level Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2010) (article 5.) it says:
Deputy elections for People's Assemblies at each level shall be done by the method of secret ballot. Constituents shall be guaranteed the freedom of voting for or against. No one may require the publication of the fact of having voted for or against a constituent, and may not place pressure on or retaliate against someone related to the vote.
And again in article 64.:
Votes shall be done by method of secret ballot. If constituents agree, they shall not make a marking, and if they oppose, they shall horizontally strike out the name of the candidate.
And most most relevant to my question in article 65.:
In cases where constituents agree or make a mark of opposition in their vote, no one may enter or look into the polling rooms.
All these articles seem to indicate to me that the vote is secret, and at the time of the casting of the vote no one else but the voter is allowed to be in the polling room.
However in videos depicting these elections we see some citizens entering the booth and casting their vote. This means there is a camera in the same room they are casting their vote. Doesn't this violate the principle of secret ballot stipulated by the constitution? One could argue that the citizen could have chosen to approve or reject a candidate in a separate room from where they cast their vote, but article 56. says this:
Polling rooms shall be set up by 3 days before the election day so that the confidentiality of votes can be guaranteed. The polling room shall have a polling box and writing supplies. Election halls may be decorated with things like flags and flowers.
If writing supplies and a polling box are supposed to be in the same room then that means that they are supposed to choose to approve of reject a candidate in the same room they cast their vote, so that means that in the video we are able to see whether they approved or rejected the candidate (one leaves it empty to approve a candidate and crosses out their name to reject), which means the principle of secret ballot was violated.
The citizens seen in the polling room all were wearing medals or pins, which leads me to believe they were members of a party or had some official position. Could that be the reason we see them, considering it's pretty obvious whether they are going to approve or reject a candidate?
Q: Why do we see citizens in the video casting their vote, if the ballot is supposed to be secret?
In many news it is said there is only one candidate per electoral precinct:
Where can I find a source for whether or not there was more than one candidate up for election in each precinct?
The document I mentioned earlier seems to indicate that there can be more than one candidate in a precinct up for election (otherwise why even make the election, besides serving as a census of the population?) (article 42 (Number of candidates for deputy to be registered at the electoral precinct)):
The number of candidates for deputy registered with each electoral precinct at deputy elections for People’s Assemblies at each level shall not be restricted.
If there was only one candidate up for election in each precinct, why weren't there more? Article 35:
Candidates for deputy for People's Assemblies at each level shall be recommended directly by constituents, or recommended jointly or alone by the Party or by social organizations. The person making the recommendation must inform the recommended candidate for deputy to the district election committee.
Article 36:
Candidates for deputy recommended for People's Assemblies at each level may only be registered as candidates for deputy in the relevant electoral precinct by going through a deliberation over their qualifications at a meeting of more than a hundred constituents. The constituent meeting for the deliberation on qualifications of candidates for deputy shall be organized by the district election committee.
Article 39:
The registration of candidates for deputy by People's Assemblies at each level shall be decided by the agreement of more than half of the participants at the constituent meeting for deliberating on the qualifications of the candidates.
Assuming that in article 35 "constituents" here means means members of the 100+ people chosen by the election committee (I'm assuming they are random citizens of the precinct, but I don't see anywhere anything about how those 100+ members of the constituent meeting are chosen, so this could be the source of my confusion), then citizens could bring up a potential candidate that they consider better represents them than the one brought forth by the DFRF. I would be surprised if that were the case and not have even a single instance where there was more than one candidate up for election (even if the country were to have an extremely unanimous view on who best represents them, I find it hard to imagine there isn't a single case where there was more than one candidate up for election).
If we consider that the potential candidate has to be approved with a vote with an approval greater than 50% by the constituents in order to be registered as a candidate, then maybe one could say that maybe there were more potential candidates brought up but in the end it was decided to approve only one person to be registered as a candidate. But wouldn't that be an abuse of the system? I am interpreting the role of that constituent meeting to be the filtering out of candidates that do not meet the requirements to run for election, not to choose for the whole population of the precinct what candidate should win.
Q: Do these elections really only have a single candidate up for election per precinct, and if yes, why aren't there more?
Trans rights are human rights. They are not something you can take away because people "stop adhering to the social contract", the same way we can't take access to food and healthcare away from prisoners just because they did a crime (yes, in real-life they often get taken away, but you get the point).
Insisting on deadnaming someone also harms the whole transgender community, by pushing the point that those rights are conditional.