# "Intent of the voter" is a foolish and unworkable standard **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2001, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349 "2001-02-06T14:29:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/41 "2001-02-07T19:11:39Z")
ElvisL1ves: > [@](#): > > \*\*Read it again. Kennedy and/or O’Connor were careful to state that they were declaring new law specific to that case only. The ruling specifically, and embarrassingly, declared it was not to be used as a precedent. This aparently was because the conclusion was opposite to the principles and reasoning it stated. \*\* _You_ read it again. I counted seven or eight justices indicating problems with the “intent of the voter” standard. RTFirefly: Did I say voting machinery shouldn’t be updated in areas where it doesn’t perform satisfactorily? No, I said the “intent of the voter” standard is illegal, unconstitutional, subjective, partisan, ineffective and dogshit. I also said that people have a personal responsibility to make sure they voted the way they wanted to. So, trying to sift through your typical, liberal, intellectual superiority complex and your personal insults, you do support a line being drawn on what’s a vote and what’s not, then? What’s that line, please? If you say it’s case by case, decided by political party members, you’re the “pile of deliberate ignorance.” If you support a standard beyond the above, you agree with me. Sucks to be you! ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/42 "2001-02-07T19:26:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milossarian (about Elvis)_ > I counted seven or eight justices indicating problems with the “intent of the voter” standard … > > Sucks to be you! Sucks more to be wrong. From the majority opinion in _Bush v. Gore_, the link to which is in one of my earlier posts: > [@](#): > > The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment. The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. In other words, “intent of the voter” was not the problem. The problem was a lack of uniform standards that would assist the vote counters in determining the intent of the voter. In fact, the per curiam majority specifically states that lack of time to count votes was the only reason the case was not remanded to the Florida Supreme Court to devise such standards and proceed with the counting. “Intent of the voter” is not inherently the standardless mess that you assume it must be. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/43 "2001-02-07T19:39:18Z")
minty - No need to misquote me. The “sucks to be you” comment was not directed toward ElvisL1ves but to RTFirefly, in response to his attack on me. > [@](#): > > \*\*In other words, “intent of the voter” was not the problem. The problem was a lack of uniform standards that would assist the vote counters in determining the intent of the voter. \*\* Huh? If you have standards, you have standards. If you have “intent of the voter,” you don’t have standards, rather a nebulous, subjective, ballot-by-ballot, depending-on-who-is-looking-at-it system. “Intent of the voter” with standards = standards for what constitutes a vote. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear that when I refer to “intent of the voter,” I am referencing that as the standard in absence of any other rigid criteria. Did not the majority (if not 7 or even 8) of the SCOTUS justices indicate serious problems with “intent of the voter” in absence of any other rigid criteria? The answer is “yes.” Would a lawyer cite this case in support of an assertion that standardless intent of the voter criteria is insufficient? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/44 "2001-02-07T20:00:30Z")
So all we’re arguing about is what standards to adopt when determining the intent of the voter? Great! As long as we toss out the suggestion that nothing short of a 100% correctly-cast vote can reveal voter intent, I’m willing to negotiate. And sorry for the misattribution of whose self you think it sucks to be. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/45 "2001-02-07T20:01:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > RTFirefly: Did I say voting machinery shouldn’t be updated in areas where it doesn’t perform satisfactorily? No, I said the “intent of the voter” standard is illegal, unconstitutional, subjective, partisan, ineffective and dogshit. I also said that people have a personal responsibility to make sure they voted the way they wanted to. And what **I** was responding to was precisely the passage of yours that I quoted in my previous post. So only your last sentence in _this_ quote was relevant; the rest is irrelevant garbage. And that last sentence is simply a reiteration of your original position, rather than a response to my post. Like I said, > [@](#): > > After other people have refuted your arguments, you just wait for another thread, and state them again, as if they’d never been responded to only this time you didn’t wait for a new thread. Thank you for proving my point with such alacrity. > [@](#): > > So, trying to sift through your typical, liberal, intellectual superiority complex and your personal insults, you do support a line being drawn on what’s a vote and what’s not, then? What’s that line, please? On **this** issue, I have responded directly to Bricker. As Esprix says, read the $%#@! thread before responding. > [@](#): > > If you say it’s case by case, decided by political party members, you’re the “pile of deliberate ignorance.” If you support a standard beyond the above, you agree with me. You realize, of course, that the question of whether or not human judgment may on occasion pick out obvious instances of voter intent that are missed by both machines and prearranged rules, has nothing to do with the matter of whether it’s reasonable to require greater “personal responsibility” of members of one party than the other. Oh, I’m sorry, you **don’t** realize that. Pity. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/46 "2001-02-07T21:12:57Z")
Gotta admire the kid’s persistence, though. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/47 "2001-02-07T22:03:39Z")
Hate to disrupt your “we’re so smart” high-five party, but your side lost, and your position on what constitutes a vote was rejected. Maybe that was because of the evil Republican cabal. Or maybe your position was problematic and logically faulty. You can guess which I choose. And I can guess which you choose. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/48 "2001-02-07T22:38:34Z")
Dang, Milo, you’re really making this entirely too easy. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Hate to disrupt your “we’re so smart” high-five party, but your side lost, and your position on what constitutes a vote was rejected. Again, you really, really need to go back and read [\*Bush v. Gore](http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html)\*: > [@](#): > > Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. The Court _did not_ reject my preferred standard, or that of anybody else for that matter. It just decided that time had run out for a recount using uniform standards. Now stop interrupting the party until you have something informed to contribute. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/49 "2001-02-07T23:56:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*The Court did not reject my preferred standard, or that of anybody else for that matter. It just decided that time had run out for a recount using uniform standards. > > Now stop interrupting the party until you have something informed to contribute. \*\* Hate to stick my dick in the punch bowl, but your selective little cut and paste there couldn’t be farther from what the court opinion said, over and over and over and over. From [Bush v. Gore](http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html) (all bolding mine): The majority opinion: > [@](#): > > The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. **The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.** > [@](#): > > The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. \*\*The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment. The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. \*\* > [@](#): > > The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. \*\*When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied. \*\* > > **Given the Court’s assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner** , the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. > [@](#): > > Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, **it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process** without substantial additional work. **It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them,** but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. > [@](#): > > **SEVEN JUSTICES OF THE COURT AGREE THAT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE RECOUNT ORDERED BY THE FLORIDA STATE SUPREME COURT THAT DEMAND A REMEDY.** See post, at 6 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (BREYER, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. (The justices may have been undercounting here, in that Ginsberg states in her dissent (paraphrasing), “Whether there are constitutional problems or not is irrelevant; it’s Florida’s law and Florida’s problem to fix.” That would make eight of nine, if you stretched a little and counted that as an acknowledgement of constitutional equal protection problems with varying standards of what constitutes a vote.) From Rehnquist: > [@](#): > > Moreover, the court’s interpretation of “legal vote,” and hence its decision to order a contest-period recount, plainly departed from the legislative scheme. Florida statutory law cannot reasonably be thought to require the counting of improperly marked ballots. From Stevens’ dissent, joined by Ginsberg and Breyer: > [@](#): > > **Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for determining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns.** Those concerns are alleviated – if not eliminated – by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process. (I couldn’t disagree more with the second part of this - nor, thankfully, could the majority of SC justices.) From Souter’s dissent: > [@](#): > > I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters’ fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary. Your assertion doesn’t smell so … minty green … now. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/50 "2001-02-08T00:13:57Z")
For the record, I _know_ the US has ten times as many people as Canada and a different government :rolleyes: However, as the States are so fond of boasting, it probably also has several hundred times as many resources at its disposal. Besides, our population is much less dense than yours (studiously avoiding the pun possibility), which creates its own problems, which were, however, dealt with. We managed to count all the ballots from Nunavut on the same night as we counted all the ballots from Toronto. I just think there’s something silly about the richest country in the world not being able to get it together to count 105 million pencil marks. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/51 "2001-02-08T00:22:53Z")
Milo, your quotes from the majority opinion (one of which I _already_ quoted to you above) demonstrate precisely what I already said: that “intent of the voter” is not itself an unconstitutional standard, but that intent needs to be determined via consistent, uniform standards. But if you’d prefer to keep beating the same dead horse by claiming that “voter intent” is itself unconstitutional, be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/52 "2001-02-08T00:33:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > \*\*I just think there’s something silly about the richest country in the world not being able to get it together to count 105 million pencil marks. \*\* I’ll assume “pencil marks” is shorthand for “ballots,” since you and I both know that precincts vote using all different methods, from punch cards to electronics to mail-in. (And that mailing in plays into it;, since mailed-in ballots need only be postmarked by election day, they can’t possibly be all counted on election day.) The thing that seems to be getting past you is that we _did_ count them. What we didn’t do is _re_count them (properly). Had the race in Florida not been so close, triggering the automatic statutory recount, this would never have been an issue. The state would have been decided based on the original count as performed. You really think Canada didn’t have any mismarked ballots? Any under- or overvotes? I’d be floored if that were the case; **every** balloting system and **every** election has its share of mistakes. That’s the whole bloody point of the thread: Is there a way to create a uniform, nationwide standard which reduces the propensity for those mistakes to the bare minimum, and outside of which ballots simply will not be counted? Can “the intent of the voter” have any real meaning or relevance beyond the physical marks the voter makes on the ballot? The argument of some people (including me) is that, due to imperfect balloting systems, yes, it can. We’re all well aware (_painfully_ aware) of your bigotry towards America, matt. I don’t think it has any relevance to the issue at hand, unfortunately for you. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/53 "2001-02-08T00:59:59Z")
More to the point, matt, the issue had **nothing at all to do** with having “enough resources” to count the votes. As mentioned, the votes **were** counted. And we would have had adequate resources to **re** count them as well, even on a nationwide basis. The problem was that **different counties were using differing counting methods.** If County A was counting ballots that had both the “Al Gore” and “Other” spaces marked, and County B wasn’t counting them at all; or if County C was counting chads that were dimpled, while County D wa only counting chads whose perforations had been broken, then it would appear that voters were not receiving equal protection (you know, that thing in our Constitution?) and having an equal opportunity to have their votes counted. The Supreme Court decided (wrongly, in my opinion) that there was not adequate time to develop a uniform standard and complete the count in time for the electors to meet and vote. So, in short, you’re arguing from a completely mistaken set of assumptions. It was never a question of resources or the capability to count. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/54 "2001-02-08T02:02:19Z")
> [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity to each voter. > > ## quote: > > Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another. It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or illusion of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectivelt as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise” (citations omitted). minty, the quotes you listed say that once a state gives the people the right to vote, those votes cannot be treated disparately. I agree. But I still don’t see how we can make the leap to how a “uniform national ballot” would be constitutional. The president is chosen by the Electoral College. The Constitution gives the right to choose the electors to the Legislatures of the several states. If it wanted to, Florida could change their laws tomorrow so that next election, their Legislature goes back to voting for the electors. That’s the system we have under the Constitution. If you don’t like it, get the necessary Amendment going. Let’s look at the complaints of “disenfranchised” voters. IMHO, it’s pretty hard to “disenfranchise” someone of a right they never had, i.e., the right to vote for President. Second, SCOTUS has said that if the vote has been given to the people, those votes cannot be treated disparately. WHO WANTED THE VOTES TREATED DISPARATELY in the last election? Let’s see, we’ll hold 'em up to the light in Palm Beach, count two corners attached in this county, not count at all in this county, ad absurdum. That’s why SCOTUS ruled as they did. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/55 "2001-02-08T02:26:05Z")
You’re right that subjectivity was the reason why the Supreme Court reversed the Florida court, **milroyj**. But as I’ve been trying to explain to milossarian, the Supremes also said that an objective, uniform standard for determining voter intent would have been acceptable to them. The way we make the leap from “no disparate treatment” to “national standards are constitutional” is via the 14th and 15th Amendments, as I’ve stated above. And as a matter of simple judicial logic, it would have been impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare Florida’s standard-less recount unconstitutional unless the federal government had the power to interfere in how Florida selects its electors. > [@](#): > > The president is chosen by the Electoral College. The Constitution gives the right to choose the electors to the Legislatures of the several states. If it wanted to, Florida could change their laws tomorrow so that next election, their Legislature goes back to voting for the electors. That’s the system we have under the > Constitution. If you don’t like it, get the necessary Amendment going. But once the Florida legislature _has_ given voters the power to choose the electors, all kinds of Supreme Court authority makes it abundantly clear that the voters’ right to vote is “fundamental.” Combined with the 14th and 15th Amendments, that means Congress can do all sorts of things to guarantee voters are enfranchised. > [@](#): > > SCOTUS has said that if the vote has been given to the people, those votes cannot be treated disparately. Yep. And because Congress has undoubted authority to regulate elections to ensure equality when it comes to voting rights, there would be no constitutional problem with a federal law that sought to impose fair and uniform voting and counting procedures. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/56 "2001-02-08T02:42:39Z")
😃 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/57 "2001-02-08T03:09:19Z")
It occurs to me that my previous responses to **milroyj** were appallingly lacking in citations. Submitted for your reading pleasure are South Carolina v. Katzenbach (U.S. 1966) and City of Rome v. United States (U.S. 1980). [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case=us=383=301](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case=us=383=301) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case=us=446=156](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case=us=446=156) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/58 "2001-02-08T13:55:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \*The problem was that **different counties were using differing counting methods.** … > So, in short, you’re arguing from a completely mistaken set of assumptions. It was never a question of resources or the capability to count. \*\* I’ll disagree slightly with that. True, the resources were always there. But the problem was that not all parties were willing to act in good faith to get the job done. I’m not aware of many people who sincerely believe that an honest effort to get the most accurate count humanly and reasonably possible couldn’t have been done in a matter of a few days, absent the GOP’s stalling, the lawsuits, the injunctions, and the political effort to discredit recounts entirely. Some people even bought into it. P.S. Has anyone else noticed the number of times the words “Canadian” and “smug” show up together in the same posts? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/59 "2001-02-08T16:10:46Z")
minty: Again, if you can’t see that “intent of the voter” + rigid criteria = rigid criteria; I can’t help you. It’s like saying, “Being poor isn’t problematic if you have $1 million.” One point I’ve never heard adequately explained: With the exception of some particular localities, the overall miscast vote total in Florida was not particularly different than anywhere else, or different from that in other elections. Is it the assertion of some, then, that the closeness of this most recent election points out the need to “correct” the voter-error portion of the uncounted vote everywhere? How will that ever be accomplished? Particularly given that the anonymous nature of our voting process means no one can know with certainty that it was their ballot that was cast in error. As for faulty voting equipment and procedural impediments, I haven’t heard anyone yet say that those shouldn’t be addressed as thoroughly as possible. I saw Gov. Jeb Bush, SoS Katherine Harris and AG Robert Butterworth (two Republicans and a Democrat, for those keeping count) at a press conference after the election saying it was going to be a priority in Florida. I agree with those saying a uniform federal voting system will be hard, if not impossible, to put in place. Extremely expensive, too. I live in a very rural area. Some of the voting districts here may have only 100 or so people. For them to buy some fancy computers for voting would be cost prohibitive. Should taxpayers foot the bill for whatever is necessary to modernize and improve the accuracy of the election process? Maybe. Voting is the cornerstone of our governmental process. But I have a feeling that it won’t be seen as such a priority when it starts involving taking funds away from other pet projects. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/60 "2001-02-08T16:35:31Z")
Who said anything about “rigid critria,” Milo? I thought that’s what we were supposed to be negotiating! 😉 > [@](#): > > One point I’ve never heard adequately explained: With the exception of some particular localities, the overall miscast vote total in Florida was not particularly different than anywhere else, or different from that in other elections. > > Is it the assertion of some, then, that the closeness of this most recent election points out the need to “correct” the voter-error portion of the uncounted vote everywhere? Precisely so. > [@](#): > > As for faulty voting equipment and procedural impediments, I haven’t heard anyone yet say that those shouldn’t be addressed as thoroughly as possible. I saw Gov. Jeb Bush, SoS Katherine Harris and AG Robert Butterworth (two Republicans and a Democrat, for those keeping count) at a press conference after the election saying it was going to be a priority in Florida. Very noble of them to show such concern for the voters, after fighting tooth and nail to preserve the disenfranchisement that their piecemeal system had created. > [@](#): > > Some of the voting districts here may have only 100 or so people. For them to buy some fancy computers for voting would be cost prohibitive. Scantron equipment probably costs, what? A few hundred bucks? And it’s not like a district with only 100 voters needs dozens of 'em. Hell, borrow the scantron machines from the schools, where half the precincts are already voting. > [@](#): > > Should taxpayers foot the bill for whatever is necessary to modernize and improve the accuracy of the election process? Maybe. Voting is the cornerstone of our governmental process. > > But I have a feeling that it won’t be seen as such a priority when it starts involving taking funds away from other pet projects. With the pissed-off support of every Democrat in the country, plus heavy-hitters like Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, how can it lose? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349.md?page=4)