Much has been made of the recent controversy surrounding polling locations on Penn?s campus and what it will mean for the election. The College Democrats and other groups are trying to add multiple polling locations around campus for students who live in the College House System.
While it is encouraging to see students passionate about the political process and determined to exercise their right to vote, changing polling places this close to the election will cause more harm than good. It runs the risk of confusing students about where they are actually supposed to vote.
People are clearly concerned about this, and the matter was brought to the Undergraduate Assembly for deliberation last night. Yes, making Penn students from some residences go the extra distance violates the letter of the law, but it does not conflict with the spirit of it.
The advantage of David Rittenhouse Laboratory is that it has long been where students on campus have gone to vote; it is a fairly well-known location that has handled a large volume of voters many times before. That it may force some to go a few blocks out of their way is unfortunate, but, given the price of freedom these days, hardly seems like a deal-breaker.
Some have said that, because of the large number of voters who will use DRL, students constrained by their class schedule may miss the opportunity to vote due to long lines and the waiting time they may incur. But there will be lines all over the city, and no professors worth their dissertations should punish students who arrive late because they voted.
We believe many of the issues raised during the course of this debate are legitimate ones -- worth debating, certainly, in time for the next election. In the end, Penn students may be better served by having several centrally located and well-advertised places on campus to vote. But with two weeks to go before Election Day, changing the polling location is not a viable or wise endeavor.
