First of all, ignoring illegitimate legislation that criminalizes crossing governments' made-up lines without permission doesn't make a person "illegal". Believing so is superstitious statism. All "immigration" control-- even if I would personally like it for some reason-- fits the bill. Calling people "illegals" identifies you as a statist who supports counterfeit "laws" and believes government "authority" trumps property rights.
Secondly, I don't think anyone should be allowed to v*te for anything that harms another person's life, liberty, or property. It's never ethical or legitimate.
But, if someone is going to be impacted by a v*te, and they feel the need to v*te in self-defense, I don't believe you should make up rules prohibiting them from doing so. Residency matters more than "citizenship" in this case. Unless you agree that the legislation will only apply to those who v*ted in favor of it, and everyone else is exempt (which would be the only reasonable approach).
If this is a problem for you, then don't make up (or support) a system where v*tes can endanger anyone in any way. Don't allow any legislation/rules that violate natural human rights, no matter how many people v*te in favor of it. (That was supposedly the idea behind establishing America as a republic instead of as a democracy, but it didn't work.)
I think the whole thing is dumb, but if membership in the club is a requirement to v*te in the club's sham contests, then it is what it is. (But in that case, the rules only apply to the members, and no one else.)
But making up a rule that everyone who's already ineligible to v*te is not eligible to v*te? You don't have to make up new rules to keep the old rules in force; you'd need to make up new rules to change the old rules. That's pretty simple and clear. Trying to bolster the old rules with new rules seems counterproductive and a waste of time.
But, I also don't quite get why-- considering the broken system we are subjected to-- one party, in particular, finds it so important that everyone who isn't eligible, according to the established rules, is allowed to v*te when it's obvious the party doesn't otherwise really care about life, liberty, property, or natural human rights of just about any kind. (Just like the opposition party.) Do they believe the new v*ters will be (or stay) loyal to them? It would be a foolish bet.
Maybe they just hope to destroy the system, but that would be the end of their power, too. Which is fine by me!
It's all so dumb and messed up beyond hope. This is just another example-- shining a light on all political sides-- that politics makes people stupid and causes them to justify evil.
