Letters: Move voting to other public buildings

It is possible to move election voting out of the schools and avoid the risk of strangers endangering students and staff [“Discord over schools as polling places,” Letters, Oct. 21].

During primary voting in 2014, one of our schools went into lockdown while in session. The alert turned out to be a false alarm, but the event created confusion.

After that, concerned residents of the New Hyde Park-Garden City Park district have worked hard and have successfully removed polling from our elementary schools. We have moved our district’s school board and budget vote to the recreation center at Michael J. Tully Park in New Hyde Park. This May will be the third year. We also have secured alternate polling sites at firehouses.

Unfortunately, for the Nov. 6 vote, the Nassau County Board of Elections has assigned some voters to New Hyde Park Memorial High School, operated by the Sewanhaka high school district. Although students are off, there will be a superintendent’s conference and strangers will be in the building for the vote.

This was a slap in the face. When a community has worked so hard and explained its serious concerns about safety, it should not be OK for the board to assign polling to a high school when Tully Park, an alternate site, is right across the street. What more is a community to do?

Kathryn Canese, New Hyde Park

Editor’s note: The writer is a vice president of the New Hyde Park Memorial High School Parent Teacher Student Association.

One of the most promising ways to get voting out of schools is weekend polling. Some democracies, such as Sweden and Australia, vote on Saturday or Sunday. That gives most people a chance to vote on a day off from work. This is one reason these nations report high voter turnout.

Another idea the United States should consider is compulsory voting. For example, Australians who do not present a valid excuse for not voting are fined $20 for their first offense and $50 after that.

These ideas would improve U.S. participation and stress the importance of this civic duty.

Vasilios Vasilounis, Bay Ridge

Varied views on report about nationalism

“What nationalism means after all” [“The 1600,” Oct. 29], columnist Dan Janison’s banal and pathetic attempt at whitewashing this misbegotten president’s use of the term “nationalist,” betrays either his own ignorance about historical context or a deliberate obtuseness that can only be considered dishonest. Perhaps he is simply exposing his own bias. Shame!

Eric Cashdan, Port Washington

Dan Janison’s column on nationalism is the most fair-minded assessment of President Donald Trump’s use of the word. His last paragraph is outstanding. He wrote, “But serious concerns about the president’s credibility, honesty or ability to govern do not turn on his use of an ordinary word that anyone can embrace.”

There is hope for journalism.

Catherine Siolas, Bayside