I can think of 100s of reasons why an old polling place was removed from use. So can you.
Ie... let's play. Say a polling booth was in a residential area where heaps of folks lived. And then, urban change led to the population in that area moving away in their droves - sufficiently to impact not just the need for a polling booth but for things like post offices, bus stops, retail shops, medical facilities etc etc etc...all of which also disappeared like the do do bird
Would closing that polling booth be considered an attempt to suppress the vote? Clearly not...but you would include that in your list
What about a booth that had seen the # of voters who chose to use it decrease, year-on-year, to the point where the use of it - compared to others - was contraindicated? Would closing that and advising the few remaining users to use the one a few streets away be seen as "suppressing the vote" or.... rationalizing resources for best use for purpose intended?
Just because they were removed...and possibly for very real practical and useful reasons. it doens follow at all that their removal impacted the vote
Indeed the data suggests that their removal had no impact
So I guess it is incumbent upon you to give us data of
which booths were closed
where they were located
why they were closed and
the empirical impact on the votes cast in their areas
