Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 September 2

= September 2 =

Petroleum Nut Tree Seedlings
Where can I get/buy these seedlings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.145.215 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your IP is one from the Philippines, one of the places where the Pittosporum resiniferum grows naturally. Apparently the nut tree is on the CITES list of endangered species, and you may find it impossible (or illegal) to acquire seedlings. I'd also be suspicious of any claims that it is some sort of route to easy wealth - the yield seems to be rather low. Have you tried contacting the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it normal to drive/catch a bus to vote in the US?
This question was prompted by a response given to a previous question, where the difficulty poorer voters have in travelling to polling stations was cited as a skewing factor in US presidential elections. This surprised me to say the least, as in the UK in my experience (I've voted in three different places in my life - one in a village, one in a town and the third in a city), virtually nobody who isn't disabled or elderly would go to a polling station other than by walking. The exception would be isolated rural areas where people might need to drive several miles to the nearest village. One's local polling station is typically as close as or almost as close as the local bus stop, and sometimes closer than the nearest available parking, thus walking is the easiest option. If vehicular transportation to polling stations is indeed the norm in America is this due to a less dense network of polling stations or something else entirely? Equisetum (talk &#124; contributions) 22:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Very few major U.S. cities have reliable, extensive public transportation, and I'm pretty sure only New York City has more people who don't drive than do. Other than New York, the only cities with sizable major public transport infrastructure are Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C., and Chicago.  Maybe San Francisco.  Other cities with train networks are very underdeveloped and not used much at all.  Bus systems likewise.  Most of the U.S. lives in suburban sprawl where Single-use zoning maintains large distances between residential, commercial, government, and industrial areas.  For most people who live in such areas, the only place you can reach by walking is more houses.  You can't get anywhere without cars for most parts of the U.S., and for people who don't have access to cars, and for whom there isn't a good PT option (which there usually isn't), they're left with a sporadic bus system that often doesn't go everywhere they need to go, and find it very hard to get to their polling station.  -- Jayron  32  23:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Which, of course, is utter nonsense as a concern, since not only are mail-in ballots available to all, the local machine will gladly drive you to the polls. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To all?  69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really to all, no. You usually have to show a reason for using an absentee ballot instead of voting directly, and some states are far stricter than others regarding what qualifies.  Not wanting to take a bus probably wouldn't qualify you, in many locations. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming, of course that the boss of one of your three minimumn wage jobs will give you the time off of work to go, and even if he does, that you can afford the loss of pay to do so. -- Jayron  32  03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And that going might take 90 to 120 minutes each way, with two transfers, and that the transfer points may not be in safe neighbourhoods. Got four hours with two 30-minute stops in Drug-Addled Killer Central to spend? --NellieBly (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Availability and uptake are different things, Medeis. Here in the UK, voting in person is simply a matter of showing up to a polling station - you don't even really need your polling card, although it helps. Voting by post or proxy involves a non-trivial amount of bureaucratic paperwork. So please be a little slower to dismiss the opinions and insights of others as 'utter nonsense'. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Name, address, signature, and an ex in the box next to the ballots I want sent to me. Just did it yesterday and the mailman will pick it up tomorrow.  People who live in the suburbs where one has to travel to vote have chosen that lifestyle.  If that is too much paperwork to have to handle, or arranging a ride to the polls, when others have to take time off from work on a tuesday, is an unbearable burden, then perhaps some people shouldn't be voting.  Last I checked, the polling place in a district is the same for all, and almost always a government building.  My experience in NYC is that the polling place is usually within five blocks, so while I would often take public transit, I never had to to vote.  I did once drive 200 miles round trip when I moved too close to election to change my registered voting place. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My polling station is about two miles from my house, in a suburban US area, about half of which is along a road which it is not terribly safe to walk along due to narrowness, considerable traffic, and a lack of sidewalks. I've always driven there in the 14 years I've lived in my house and doubt I will ever do otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that the UK's population density is about 8 times that of the US. Perhaps the US also has larger polling stations that serve a larger number of people? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The US has a low population density due to lots of almost completely empty space. With a very small number of exceptions, its people aren't any more spread out. According to Urbanization by country, the UK is 90% urbanised and the US 82%. That isn't a big difference. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it is how that density is organized. As noted, much of the U.S. is characterized by sprawl and single-use zoning.  Outside of old Northeastern cities and small villages, people in the U.S. are more likely to live in giant housing tracts which may not be a conveniently walkable distance from anything except more housing tracts.  Even if the distance is walkable, it often isn't safe to do so, as such areas are built to encourage car usage and discourage walking or biking, due to a lack of bike lanes or sidewalks, and the use of Street hierarchy systems that discourage anything except driving.  Most polling places are in public schools or libraries, which often aren't walkable to many people.  -- Jayron  32  04:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is that it depends on where one is. I currently live in a large apartment building in Manhattan, and my polling place is literally in the lobby of my building. When I lived in my previous apartment in Manhattan, my polling place was at a school about three blocks' walk away, very walkable. Before that, when I lived in a suburb, the polling place was about a mile and a half from my house, and I would drive there. In rural areas, I'm sure there are people who have to drive substantially longer distances to vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers everyone. I've been reading about single use zoning - it must be a nightmare living in a place where you can't even walk to a local shop (well, excepting rural areas - there you get the beauty of nature as compensation). In case anyone is interested in the UK polling stations are temporary and are put almost everywhere (schools, community halls, churches, sports centres, basically any public building with enough space). Polling stations are open long hours as well (I think 7am to 10pm is usual) so that people don't have to skip work. Equisetum (talk &#124; contributions) 20:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Equisetum. By the way, in France polling stations are also local. You vote on Sunday in most of Europe so there is no need to take time off work, And in France anyone can go to the count and a lot of people do, so it is very sociable and democratic. Is the US the only advanced country where voting can be difficult? What about Canada? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Another data point: I have lived in 5 US cities over the last 16 years. In all of them, I was able to walk to my polling place. Most of them were temporary setups, housed in churches. This is likely biased by the fact that they were all locations near universities, and I made it a point to always live in neighborhoods in which I could walk/bike to a variety of businesses and retail services. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to Itsmejudith:In Canada, it is not difficult to vote or prove your eligibility to vote. If you are not on the Official Voters' List (which you can access on line), you can register at the polling station (advance or on election day) by means of one piece of picture ID showing your address. Anyone who is registered or who registers in place can vote at an advance poll that usually runs on several days in the weeks prior to the election. You don't need to have a reason. There are fewer advance-polling stations than regular ones, so you may have to travel further to get to your own. You can mail-in vote. On election day, an employer must ensure that you have a minimum of 3 consecutive hours in which to vote and may not deduct your pay for whatever time is required. (The employer decides which hours, and may allow one to arrive late or leave early. Most polling stations are open 8 to 8 or 9 to 9, so not many people need time off.) I have lived in apartment buildings in Toronto where the polling station was in the lobby. 50 years ago, polling stations were in people's houses, but that is rare now because houses are rarely wheelchair accessible. Now I live in farm country and have a 4-km drive to the polling station. (If you phone a candidate's office on election day, someone will arrange to have you picked up and delivered back home if you have no access otherwise, and for no charge. You don't have to declare your voting preference or be a member of the candidate's party to get a ride. You can also advise a candidate's team that you will need a ride at any time during the run-up to the election.) Bielle (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are just making that up, Jayron. No city between DC and Boston has a lack of walkable sidewalks to get you to the polling paces.  Maybe L.A.?  Although I doubt that as well.  Give me some non-partisan refs that say one can't walk to the polling place in various cities--or request a party hack to drive you, while you're at it. μηδείς (talk)

State with most navigable waterways
Various sources, including our article, say that Kentucky has the greatest length of navigable waterways and streams of any state except Alaska. Various sources, including this official report, say that Alabama is ranked first in the nation with the amount of navigable waterways, with no carve-out for Alaska. What is the truth of the matter? John M Baker (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Navigable by whom? Ocean-going vessels?  Oil tankers?  Kayaks?  -- Jayron  32  23:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a definition. If it turns out that the disparity is due to a difference in definitions, I would consider that an acceptable answer. John M Baker (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is not the entire Ohio River border of Kentucky navigable? The answer would apparently depend on the draught of the relevant class of ship. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article on navigability may be helpful here. Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the navigability article confirms that there are multiple definitions. So it may be possible to reconcile these two claims: the claim that Alaska is #1 and Kentucky is #2 (also made at Portal:Kentucky), and the claim that Alabama is #1, made by some sources in Alabama. So if the Kentucky claim is correct using definition X and Alabama's claim is correct using definition Y, that would be fine. Kentucky includes most of the length of the Ohio River, which presumably is navigable by almost any definition. The Kentucky numbers may be decreased now because I understand that most of the Green River (Kentucky) and the Kentucky River formerly were navigable but are no longer (so another possibility is simply that the rankings have changed). John M Baker (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding "navigable by whom", the Army Corps of Engineers certainly has a standard definition for navigability, because it is used to determine the extent of their jurisdiction. You might try looking for that. The Masked Booby (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, the federal jurisdiction over navigable waterways stems from the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Alaska may be a special case, since much of the public land in Alaska is federally-owned anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the navigable piece of Federal jurisdiction stems from the Admiralty Clause, not the interstate commerce clause. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)