Check your polling place! (for sale, 2015, purchase)

[ormari]

Originally Posted by mp775

As far as "keeping with the flow of the last few primaries," my polling place has been open for every single primary since at least 1984. Maybe it was just one of the lucky third to stay open for the last 30 years, and they decided to switch it up this time.

Has anyone else here had to go to a different polling place in a past primary?

As you suggest, polling places come and go. For instance, AlfieBoy said his polling place has always been Hope High School. But for many on College Hill the polling place used to be at the Cathedral of St. John on North Main Street (perhaps before AlfieBoy's time) and is now Hope High School. When they closed the former location, presumably the Board of Elections or relevant authority had to redistribute voters accordingly. This is but one benign reason a polling place for this primary may have changed, even if the self-same voter's general election polling place did not change. Or they could have shifted the distribution in response to supply and demand history, in order to help streamline the voting process for those who formerly had to wait in lines… it need not be a nefarious motivation.

My tenure in RI as resident and voter is less than 10 years, but I will say that where I voted yesterday was different than in the 2014 election. My neighbors tell me the polling place does shift.

Life isn't static.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by boulevardofdef

Is the implication here that the Hillary-supporting state government closed polling places to throw the election to Hillary? That doesn't make much sense. Who votes for Hillary? Older people, minorities. Who votes for Bernie? Younger people, white people. Which of those groups is less likely to have access to information about polling places and transportation to more-distant polling places? By far the Hillary voters.

Excellent point.

[AlfieBoy]

Originally Posted by ormari

As you suggest, polling places come and go. For instance, AlfieBoy said his polling place has always been Hope High School. But for many on College Hill the polling place used to be at the Cathedral of St. John on North Main Street (perhaps before AlfieBoy's time) and is now Hope High School. When they closed the former location, presumably the Board of Elections or relevant authority had to redistribute voters accordingly. This is but one benign reason a polling place for this primary may have changed, even if the self-same voter's general election polling place did not change. Or they could have shifted the distribution in response to supply and demand history, in order to help streamline the voting process for those who formerly had to wait in lines… it need not be a nefarious motivation.

My tenure in RI as resident and voter is less than 10 years, but I will say that where I voted yesterday was different than in the 2014 election. My neighbors tell me the polling place does shift.

Life isn't static.

No, life isn't static and I'm not asking that it change. But people weren't able to vote because of poor planning and stupid pennywise decisions by incompetent bureaucrats. And many people were inconvenienced. So you can perhaps see where a first class letter advising of the changes, in tandem with assuring that all facilities are equally equipped for handicapped people, would be appropriate and wise. And inexpensive. That's basic competency, that's not managing by exception. Isn't a goal of the SecState's office to advocate for voters, to expand the number of people who participate in a democracy" It certainly isn't their j-o-b to make it harder to vote, but that's what they've accomplished. States still monitored and governed by the enforcement arm of the VRA would have had to submit plans to the feds prior to enacting these changes; perhaps these rules should be expanded.

[mp775]

Originally Posted by AlfieBoy

...their "new" polling place...was not accessible for wheelchairs.

Which would be a violation of the ADA.

There was also no parking at my "new" polling place. Not normally something I would complain about and it wasn't terribly far (for my able-bodied self) to walk from on-street parking a few blocks away, but it's something to consider when you're consolidating polling places and people are coming from much farther away than the immediate neighborhood.

[ormari]

I agree they ought to mail information about polling place changes out, though I think a postcard would have sufficed and saved postage.

In the rush of our local government to move everything online, they've left seniors and/or low income voters with limited access to the online world out in the cold. I said so earlier in the thread.

I think it is important that we not confuse the suitability of a polling place with the consolidation of polling places. ADA requirements at polling places are necessary of course but I don't think they went out of their way to establish new polling places in unsuitable facilities.

What happened to the party machines giving voters rides to the polls? That could minimize some of those parking issues...

Also troubling are reports of poll workers who allegedly allowed affiliated voters to vote the ballot of the opposition. I am not sure how reliable these reports are.

Now if only we can get the parties to pay their freight for the government holding elections on their behalf, perhaps some of the necessary improvements can be made.

[AlfieBoy]

Originally Posted by ormari

I agree they ought to mail information about polling place changes out, though I think a postcard would have sufficed and saved postage.

In the rush of our local government to move everything online, they've left seniors and/or low income voters with limited access to the online world out in the cold. I said so earlier in the thread.

I think it is important that we not confuse the suitability of a polling place with the consolidation of polling places. ADA requirements at polling places are necessary of course but I don't think they went out of their way to establish new polling places in unsuitable facilities.

What happened to the party machines giving voters rides to the polls? That could minimize some of those parking issues...

Also troubling are reports of poll workers who allegedly allowed affiliated voters to vote the ballot of the opposition. I am not sure how reliable these reports are.

Now if only we can get the parties to pay their freight for the government holding elections on their behalf, perhaps some of the necessary improvements can be made.

It's not about online, offline, no line, by line, it's simply another demonstration of incompetence in state government -- flat out naked, ugly incompetence that we get the honor of paying for. It's just not that hard to puzzle out a solution: either they don't care (or don't know how) to be successful -- just the usual muddling along. At core, this is just a symptom of a greater illness. And I believe I have talked this topic out the window...

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by boulevardofdef

Yeah, I'm not saying I don't get it and that the concerns aren't legitimate (though I personally am more ambivalent about free trade). Bernie also did very well in Rhode Island, most likely for the same reasons. It's just that ... well, there are a million things I can say about Trump, but I'll just go with this for now. He says, quite openly and explicitly, that Americans are being jerked around by people like him, and because he knows how they're being screwed -- because he's done it -- he can stop it. There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who think that's a good argument and those who don't.

RI is not alone in that regard, as seen in the results of many other states.

While I can't bring myself to support either one, hopefully it will open up future elections to more similar dialogue that needs to happen but has been fallaciously lacking in recent elections.

[riblue]

I do not have any problems with compressing the polling locations and I found this information on the internet and the printed word. I think that Trump did well because Cruz is way way conservative. My problem was the two different colored ballots for the two parties. That threw to the wind any semblance of privacy.

[boulevardofdef]

Originally Posted by riblue

I do not have any problems with compressing the polling locations and I found this information on the internet and the printed word. I think that Trump did well because Cruz is way way conservative. My problem was the two different colored ballots for the two parties. That threw to the wind any semblance of privacy.

My wife complained about that! I hadn't noticed myself. I told her that your party registration is public record, so there's not necessarily an expectation of privacy there. (Check out rivoters.com -- you can search for anyone in the state and see if they're affiliated with a party.) But I agree that the ballots should be the same color.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by boulevardofdef

My wife complained about that! I hadn't noticed myself. I told her that your party registration is public record, so there's not necessarily an expectation of privacy there. (Check out rivoters.com -- you can search for anyone in the state and see if they're affiliated with a party.) But I agree that the ballots should be the same color.

Easily identifiable party ballots bothered me too. They do it in Mass. also but it doesn't make it right.

It breaches privacy at the polling place. As a counter to your argument, in RI one may affiliate on the day of the election and disaffiliate upon exit. In that case, a site like rivoter.com may not get a snapshot at the appropriate time; it doesn't seem to keep a running history of party affiliation. So the argument that there isn't an expectation of privacy isn't compelling to me.

Of course, disaffiliation takes 90 days to be executed by the Board of Elections. That window allows candidates, the political machines, and even rivoter.com to capture that information without difficulty if they wanted to do so. I'd guess that 90 day window is, by design, for this purpose among others.