# "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:** 4
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/61 "2001-02-08T17:03:26Z")
minty: What you see as nefarious disenfranchisement by the Republican power structure, I see as Florida getting busted after previously getting lucky whistling through the graveyard election after election. Voting equipment and localized staffing and procedural decisions are made at the **county** level. There’s plenty of blame for both Republicans and Democrats to go around re: the Florida fiasco. And I’m sure they aren’t the only state hoping they never have a microscopically close statewide election. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/62 "2001-02-08T17:17:48Z")
in **Milo’s** dictionary, the words “specific” “uniform” and “rigid” are all synonmous. Using **your** quote of the _Bush/Gore_ decision: > [@](#): > > 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. A specific and uniform standard \*\*could \*\* have any of the ones chosen (hanging chads, pregnant chads, no chads). Any of them, as long as they were specific and used uniformly across the counties. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/63 "2001-02-08T17:24:05Z")
I totally agree with you that everyone shares the blame for the screwed up voting system in Florida: state and counties, Republicans and Democrats. They all ought to be ashamed of what they created. But given that the system was screwed up and that the election was impossibly close, it seems legitimate to me to look at how officials reacted to it. The R’s closed ranks behind an initial vote count of questionable legitimacy and performed every maneuver they could think of to run out the clock. The D’s cried foul and attempted to fix the problem by overly-selective, standardless recounts. So there’s blame to be shared there too. But my default position is still that there were an undetermined (but perhaps determinative) number of ballots where voter intent was perfectly clear, but that never got counted. And that, my friend, is inexcusable disenfranchisement. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/64 "2001-02-08T17:27:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > 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. It’s been estimated that modernizing our voting systems nationwide will require $6-7 **billion**. Given that Dubya has just proposed a $1.6 **trillion** tax cut, I think there you’ve got a ‘pet project’ that could be trimmed sufficiently to pay for voting system modernization, without anyone noticing the difference to the pet project in question. ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/65 "2001-02-08T17:36:15Z")
With respect to standards, ‘consistent’ doesn’t generally imply ‘rigid’. For instance, social-services workers that have to make decisions on whether a child needs to be removed from its family all are guided by the same laws and regs in making their decisions, and are supposed to exercise their judgment in a consistent manner. But they still _have_ judgment that they must exercise, hence no rigidity. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/66 "2001-02-08T18:19:05Z")
wring: > [@](#): > > A specific and uniform standard **could** have any of the ones chosen (hanging chads, pregnant chads, no chads). Any of them, as long as they were specific and used uniformly across the counties. I agree. And while I personally don’t think a pregnant chad equals a vote, particularly when all other spots on a ballot are fully punched, at least that would provide a standard that almost removes subjectivity from the equation. Personally, I rather like our home state, Michigan’s, standard, which I believe is at least two corners detached on a punch-card chad. minty: > [@](#): > > \*\*But my default position is still that there were an undetermined (but perhaps determinative) number of ballots where voter intent was perfectly clear, but that never got counted. And that, my friend, is inexcusable disenfranchisement. \*\* But those votes weren’t determinable without violating the Constitution (the equal protection problems of standardless voter intent-searching) or breaking the law (Crafting new rules that affect the conduct of an election that has already occurred - Indeed, one in which the vote totals and the amount needed to overturn the result are known.) My default position is that the correct time to fix the problems was before the election or after it. Not during it. Following the rules, the Constitution and the law, the correct outcome was achieved. (Without getting into the fact that Freedom-of-Information recounts are indicating Bush likely won by your standards, anyway.) And why is the disenfranchisement inexcusable in Florida, but not Michigan or New Jersey or North Dakota? Because it may have changed the outcome here? To that I respond, “So what?” Are all votes equally important or aren’t they? This logic is precisely why problems in the Florida voting apparatus and procedure weren’t changed. It didn’t affect any outcomes before at a statewide level; therefore it didn’t matter. Firefly: > [@](#): > > \*\*For instance, social-services workers that have to make decisions on whether a child needs to be removed from its family all are guided by the same laws and regs in making their decisions, and are supposed to exercise their judgment in a consistent manner. But they still have judgment that they must exercise, hence no rigidity. \*\* Criteria as to what constitutes a vote will still involve some human judgement; just much less of it. And in your above scenario, the social worker isn’t a relative of the family for whom she is making the child placement decision. Nor does she stand to gain financially or otherwise from the outcome of her decision. Roughly the situation that was present with Democratic Party members (on canvassing boards in key, Gore-leaning counties) having the power to change the result of an election to a Democratic candidate, using varying and undefined standards. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/67 "2001-02-08T19:11:08Z")
You seem to have shifted your position now **Milo**. (I’m sorry, or is your ‘default’ position the one where you avoid admitting that you were wrong by shifting your stance 180 degrees?) Your position, as stated before, was that the SCOTUS defined searching for the ‘intent of the voter’ as being unconstitutional etc. and, in fact, you personally expounded on this as well From page one: > [@](#): > > SCOTUS ruling, the main message from it that will last is that the “intent of the voter” standard is unconstitutionally subjective and insufficient in anything but a local election, and maybe even then. and > [@](#): > > No, I said the “intent of the voter” standard is illegal, unconstitutional, subjective, partisan, ineffective and dogshit. hmmm. no concession about ‘well, all I’m looking for is consistent standards’. More from page one: > [@](#): > > 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.” Yep, here he is again, force feeding the word “rigid” and here on this page: > [@](#): > > Again, if you can’t see that “intent of the voter” + rigid criteria = rigid criteria; I can’t help you. But now he’s saying “consistent standards”, but just not last November, then it would have been wrong to issue consistent standards after the vote (even tho’ the SCOTUS indicated that there simply wasn’t enough time to do so). ooooookay. Time to find another ‘default position’. By the way, you are the only one who has been saying that we only care (present tense) about Florida’s standards and voting equipment. The disenfrachisment of voters (any) should be of concern to all. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/68 "2001-02-08T19:46:18Z")
wring: Do they have any “Reading is Fundamental” programs in your neighborhood? I suggest you scoot up a chair with the third-graders. You may want to scroll back to where I said: > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > \*\*But now he’s saying “consistent standards”, but just not last November, then it would have been wrong to issue consistent standards after the vote (even tho’ the SCOTUS indicated that there simply wasn’t enough time to do so). > > ooooookay. Time to find another ‘default position’. \*\* A. As I pointed out in my lengthy, quote-after-quote citation from both the SCOTUS majority opinion and dissenting opinions, virtually all of them saw standardless intent-of-the-voter as problematic, wrong and/or unconstitutional. Making your “even tho’ the SCOTUS indicated that there simply wasn’t enough time to do so” statement ludicrous. I was a bit leery of making such a lengthy post, but hoped that seeing the message hammered home in bolded quote after bolded quote would sink in for people like you. Clearly, I underestimated you. It mentions similar sentiments that refute your assertion about 20 or so more times. Want me to post them for you to ignore, too? B. My position hasn’t changed a bit. I clarified it (as quoted above) for people like you who don’t seem to understand it. And it’s cute of you to make it sound as though it’s my partisan assertion that the rules for conducting an election shouldn’t be changed in the process of that election. As pointed out [here](http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/columns/fl.cruz.florida.12.01/), it’s federal law: > [@](#): > > A federal statute, enacted by Congress over a century ago, sets a forth basic, common-sense principle: Title III, Section 5 states that the rules governing a presidential election should be set “prior to” election day. You missed by one lousy vowel having a _perfect_ user name. ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/69 "2001-02-08T20:13:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > [T]hose votes weren’t determinable without violating the Constitution (the equal protection problems of standardless voter intent-searching) or breaking the law (Crafting new rules that affect the conduct of an election that has already occurred - Indeed, one in which the vote totals and the amount needed to overturn the result are known.) > > My default position is that the correct time to fix the problems was before the election or after it. Not during it. Following the rules, the Constitution and the law, the correct outcome was achieved. I’ve already stated (several times) that the recounts should have occurred under uniform standards to determine voter intent. Doing so would not, as I read _Bush_, violate equal protection. Also, the Court’s initial opinion (remanding to Florida to reconsider the basis of its decision postponing Katherine Harris’ certification deadline) expressed concern that Fla. had improperly based a decision on the state constitution rather than normal judicial interpretation of the legislature’s pre-existing statute. Nowhere in the subsequent majority opinion did the Supreme Court express the slightest concern that setting uniform standards would violate the federal statute regarding the election of the electoral college. If formulating uniform standards to determine voter intent after the election violated federal law, it would be pretty silly of the Court to say that, but for the time crunch, they’d remand to Fla. for the court there to work out such standards. Thus, your second argument here is not recognized as valid law, and it’s also a rather weak argument at that. > [@](#): > > Freedom-of-Information recounts are indicating Bush likely won by your standards, anyway. Fine by me, if true. I have no problem with counting votes. I have a big problem with refusing to let them be accurately counted. > [@](#): > > And why is the disenfranchisement inexcusable in Florida, but not Michigan or New Jersey or North Dakota? Because it may have changed the outcome here? Disenfranchisement is inexcusable no matter where it occurs. But it ought to be obvious that the problem of disenfranchisement is far more serious when it may have affected an election. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/70 "2001-02-08T21:27:54Z")
How is it that your repeated assertions for “rigid” standard now becomes “consistent” standard and isn’t a backtracking? As I pointed out before, a **consistent** standard could have easily have been what Texas had - ie the pregnant chads, which not only are substantially less than “rigid”, but as subjective as they come, which, to quote you again would make them: “illegal, unconstitutional, subjective, partisan, ineffective and dogshit.”. I don’t think anyone has had a difficulty in reading and understanding your position (as it changes), we’ve just pointed out when and where you are mistaken or have changed it. As far as quoting the federal law etc. Minty details nicely the problem with your assesment of the situation and the SCOTUS decisions, or did you think the Supremes were ill aquainted with the relevant federal statues? Now, for the rest of it, I didn’t agree with the poster on the first page who got nasty with you. The worst I’ve said to you is that you switched your position/equating ‘default position’ with refusing to admit you were wrong (a stance I maintain). Your references to reading ability, and user name nonsense well, let’s just say that other people are able to disagree without such personal attacks. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/71 "2001-02-08T21:39:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*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’s just another thing to laugh about. Canada uses the hysterically high-tech, advanced, and foolproof system of having the voter mark an x or a check mark beside the name of the candidate of his or her choice. > [@](#): > > (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.) We count our mail-in and advance ballots _prior_ to election day. > [@](#): > > 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. Certainly true. However, whatever voting problems we may have had didn’t serve to delegitimize the entire election. > [@](#): > > We’re all well aware (_painfully_ aware) of your bigotry towards America, matt. I’ll have you know that my mother is American. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/72 "2001-02-08T22:34:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > **And that’s just another thing to laugh about. Canada uses the hysterically high-tech, advanced, and foolproof system of having the voter mark an x or a check mark beside the name of the candidate of his or her choice.** Foolproof? You underestimate the ability of fools to screw things up. Tell me, how difficult is it to mark an X beside the names of two candidates for the same race? Foolproof, my leg. My instincts tell me that such a system leads to a decent proportion of discarded, screwed-up ballots. In any case, the method of balloting is neither here not there as it relates to the process of counting them. > [@](#): > > We count our mail-in and advance ballots _prior_ to election day. See, there’s that equal protection thing again. The entire state of Oregon went to mail-in ballots this year. The date of the presidential election is a Federal matter. You cannot have 49 states allowed to vote on Nov. 7, and have one state required to have their mail-in ballots already mailed-in and counted (as opposed to postmarked) prior to Nov. 7. Despite what you may think, we do make our best efforts to treat people by the same rules. > [@](#): > > Certainly true. However, whatever voting problems we may have had didn’t serve to delegitimize the entire election. You don’t have an electoral vote system. If we didn’t, the Florida vote totals would have been irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I’ll have you know that my mother is American. Bully for you and for her. Is she also quietly moving her chair north? ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/73 "2001-02-08T23:18:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > Foolproof? You underestimate the ability of fools to screw things up. Tell me, how difficult is it to mark an X beside the names of two candidates for the same race? A hell of a lot more difficult to do _accidentally_ than not punching a chad all the way through, or misreading a butterfly ballot. > [@](#): > > In any case, the method of balloting is neither here not there as it relates to the process of counting them. Excuse me, the format of the ballot you use is of primary importance as to how certain you can be that what you see on the ballot is what the person meant. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > We count our mail-in and advance ballots _prior_ to election day. > > See, there’s that equal protection thing again. The entire state of Oregon went to mail-in ballots this year. The date of the presidential election is a Federal matter. You cannot have 49 states allowed to vote on Nov. 7, and have one state required to have their mail-in ballots already mailed-in and counted (as opposed to postmarked) prior to Nov. 7. Despite what you may think, we do make our best efforts to treat people by the same rules. If they’re the same ridiculous, naive, and ineffective rules, that makes things worse, not better. > [@](#): > > You don’t have an electoral vote system. If we didn’t, the Florida vote totals would have been irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Had the race in Florida not been so close, triggering the automatic statutory recount, this would never have been an issue. But it _was_, Blanche, it _was_. Are you saying that the only reason that disenfranchisement due to electoral incompetence is only a worry if the election is close? That it wouldn’t have ethically mattered if gross irregularities like this had occurred in Podunk, Iowa, where the election was uncontested? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’ll have you know that my mother is American. > > Bully for you and for her. Is she also quietly moving her chair north? She moved her chair quite definitively north quite some time ago when she decided that she felt the same way about the States that I eventually would. And about that: if an elephant was stumbling about clumsily in your immediate vicinity, I imagine you’d move your chair too. ---
**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 9, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/74 "2001-02-09T00:10:50Z")
With all their beady little eyes And flappin’ heads so full of lies Blame Canada! Blame Canada! Play nicely, gentlemen. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/75 "2001-02-09T02:50:54Z")
wring: I consider ‘rigid’ standards and ‘consistent’ standards the same thing. Sorry if you don’t. From the New Webster’s Dictionary: **rigid** _adj._ - Stiff; unyielding; not pliant; strict; stern; rigorous. **consistent** _adj._ - Fixed; firm; not contradictory; compatible. To characterize that as a flip-flop is insulting, and puzzling. The words are interchangeable. So what in the hell are you talking about? And if you can’t read the quoted citations from the SCOTUS justices that clearly indicate that there was far more going on then simply running out of time, my comments on your reading and comprehension stand. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/76 "2001-02-09T03:14:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > **wring:** I consider ‘rigid’ standards and ‘consistent’ standards the same thing. Sorry if you don’t. > > From the New Webster’s Dictionary: > > **rigid** _adj._ - Stiff; unyielding; not pliant; strict; stern; rigorous. > > **consistent** _adj._ - Fixed; firm; not contradictory; compatible. > > To characterize that as a flip-flop is insulting, and puzzling. > > The words are interchangeable. So what in the hell are you talking about? Just look at the definitions above. They are **not** interchangeable. They, in the manner of English words of all kinds, cover a range of meanings, but they’re _different_ ranges, in the case of these two words. Those ranges may overlap slightly, but on the whole, “consistent” and “rigid” are not the same thing. Which you agreed with me on, after I explained the difference earlier: > [@](#): > > Criteria as to what constitutes a vote will still involve some human judgement; just much less of it. If that’s what **you** said about ‘consistent’ standards, then ‘consistent’ is not ‘rigid’; the latter leaves **no** room for human judgment. So I can only conclude that you’ve flipflopped once - to salvage some debating points with me - and now you’re flipping back again, in hopes of scoring on **wring**. You’ve forgotten we can all read this. Speaking of which: > [@](#): > > Do they have any “Reading is Fundamental” programs in your neighborhood? I suggest you scoot up a chair with the third-graders. And you might want to give GD a rest until you’ve caught up with your grade level. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/77 "2001-02-09T03:28:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > My default position is that the correct time to fix the problems was before the election or after it. Not during it. Let’s see, how exactly did FL law define a ‘vote’ before the election? Did it define it as “whatever the machine read as a vote”? No. Did it define it in terms of “the intent of the voter”? Yes. Seems that the Supreme Court was the party that decided to “fix the problems” “during” the election. > [@](#): > > Following the rules, the Constitution and the law, the correct outcome was achieved. So - according to **Milossarian** - the Supreme Court ruled correctly, but fixing the problems while matters are in play is wrong. You can’t have it both ways. Not here. > [@](#): > > And in your above scenario, the social worker isn’t a relative of the family for whom she is making the child placement decision. Nor does she stand to gain financially or otherwise from the outcome of her decision. > > Roughly the situation that was present with Democratic Party members (on canvassing boards in key, Gore-leaning counties) having the power to change the result of an election to a Democratic candidate, using varying and undefined standards. And the Supreme Court majority was above such concerns how? (I understand that Justice O’Connor is sighing with relief that she can now retire during a GOP administration.) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/78 "2001-02-09T03:33:16Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Just checking. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/79 "2001-02-09T04:11:08Z")
RTFirefly: The Supreme Court wasn’t looking at ballots and determining whether they contained votes and for whom; it declared a portion of Florida election law unconstitutional. That’s what it, on occasion, does. It also stopped the Florida Supreme Court from trying to fix the problems and change the rules after the election had taken place. You’ve read the ruling, right? You really need me to tell you this? As to your follow-up post, You do realize that any activity involving millions of humans will contain human error, always? That at some point, the time for trying to tidy up all that messy and inevitable human error comes to an end, and then it’s moving-on time? That time is outlined in Florida election law, federal law regarding presidential elections, and the U.S. Constitution (the deadlines). This was pointed out perfectly by the mess the Florida SC created when it messed with the deadlines. ---
**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 9, 2001, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/80 "2001-02-09T04:40:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milossarian_ > [The Supreme Court] also stopped the Florida Supreme Court from trying to … change the rules after the election had taken place. No, no, no. How many times do I have to repeat this point before you actually understand it? Fuck it, let’s let the Court speak for itself: > [@](#): > > 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._ Tell me, milo, why the hell would the Court say that it could be done with “substantial additional work” if doing that work were unconstitutional? Still fail to understand? Fine. Read on: > [@](#): > > [T]here is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. > [@](#): > > Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5, JUSTICE BREYER’s proposed remedy – remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate"order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000). I will say this one last time. The recount as ordered by Fla. was unconstitutional because it failed to order uniform standards that would comply with equal protection. That is bloody well NOT the same as saying that developing complying standards _after_ the election is illegal. In fact, the per curiam majority specifically says that it cannot remand the case to Florida for the (post-election!!!) development of such standards _because there was no time for them to do so_. You do not even contemplate such a remand if it’s fucking illegal!!! The Court NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE says or even implies that setting uniform standards for the legislature’s “intent of the voter” standard is either contrary to federal statute or the Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349.md?page=5)