# "Intent of the voter" is a foolish and unworkable standard

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349>\
**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:** 16\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/81 "2001-02-09T05:49:19Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> * * *
> 
> ## _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? \*\*

The net effect of SCOTUS’s ruling stopped the Florida SC from changing the rules after the election. If you disagree with that, disagree. But it’s true. And you being condescending doesn’t change that one whit.

The majority opinions say over and over that the Florida SC was straying from election law and its intent.

Now read Title III, Section 5 of the U.S. Code.

What does 2+2 equal to you, minty?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*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?

\*\*  
Because fixing it requires “substantial additional work,” maybe?

Title III, Section 5, U.S. Code. You tell me how “substantial additional work” is possible under what that law says.

I think the SCOTUS justices were more reluctant to step on the toes of the Florida SC than some people give them credit for, despite how clearly partisan and out-of-line that body was being (including a _partial_ hand count total from Miami-Dade? How is that possibly justifiable?)

As a result, they only went as far as they felt they had to in slapping them back down. That’s why I think they talked about deadlines and left it, essentially, at that.

But if, as they state **repeatedly** the Florida Court was straying from Florida election law, explain to me how it isn’t a violation of the afore-cited federal law?

{fixed bold --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 02-09-2001 at 11:26 PM]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\
**Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/82 "2001-02-09T11:20:48Z")

</div>

OK, matt, you’ve convinced me–Canada is the apotheosis of electoral procedure, while America is populated by naught but bumbling fools.

Incidentally, after one develops a reputation for brutal honesty, when confronted with one’s own bigotries, one might want to avoid tossing around red herrings like one’s parentage, especially if one intends to admit to that bigotry in the next post.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/83 "2001-02-09T13:40:59Z")

</div>

In its ultimate decision, the USSC majority is quite clear that it’s the ‘intent of the voter’ standard, _which had been in the FL election law all along_, that gave rise to what they considered an equal-protection problem.

In its earlier non-decision decision, it warned the FL Supreme Court against making new law (it vacated bacause it wasn’t sure whether the FL SC was making new law or not, you hopefully recall).

So in its final decision, the FL SC was careful to very precisely rely on FL statute - the ‘intent of the voter’ language’ - so that it would be safe from that charge. And indeed, the USSC made no claims, in its final decision, that FL had deviated from any previously written FL statute.

Its ruling was that the recount under said statute violated the ‘equal protection’ clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

> [@](#):
>
> The net effect of SCOTUS’s ruling stopped the Florida SC from changing the rules after the election. If you disagree with that, disagree. But it’s true. And you being condescending doesn’t change that one whit.
> 
> The majority opinions say over and over that the Florida SC was straying from election law and its intent.

I just went back and read the quotes you cited from the USSC’s majority opinion on the previous page. You know what? **You haven’t read them** , you ignorant turd.

They all say that the FL SC was straying from the equal-protection clause, and its failure was in having not written rules to ensure that each county judged ballots in a sufficiently consistent manner. To refresh your memory:

> [@](#):
>
> 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.**

(Your bolding, Milo.)

IOW, the USSC said the FL SC erred by **not** writing new rules, ya dumb $#!^.

Gawd, what a steaming pile of ignorance. Can cut and paste, but doesn’t even bother to read it, or is unable to grasp the plain meaning of the words. It walks, it talks, but that doesn’t mean it qualifies for sentience.

I’m so tired of your outright lies, Milo. You’re deliberately ignorant. You repeat long-refuted arguments as if they had never been challenged, and here you read a US Supreme Court decision in a manner that even its defenders would acknowledge has no basis in reality. And you’re oblivious to the fact that the very quotes you’ve C&P’d from that decision - especially the parts you’ve bolded - are the very passages that refute your own argument.

Why am I wasting my breath? This is about as productive as trying to teach a pig to sing (it wastes one’s time, and annoys the pig). But I figure this is my once-and-for-all response to you, Milo: in future threads, rather than answer you, I’ll just link to this thread to explain why I’m not bothering to.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/84 "2001-02-09T13:49:19Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Milossarian \*  
> The net effect of SCOTUS’s ruling stopped the Florida SC from changing the rules after the election. If you disagree with that, disagree. But it’s true.

Big deal. The net effect of the Court’s ruling also prevented the Florida court from pouring orange juice on Al Gore’s head and making George Bush dance for the amusement of the FSU football team. The distinction between the _effect_ of a judgment and the _legal basis_ of a judgment is that only the _basis_ of the judgment matters one whit for establishing law.

> [@](#):
>
> The majority opinions say over and over that the Florida SC was straying from election law and its intent.

First of all, there is only one “majority opinion.” Rhenquist’s concurrence and the dissents have no force of law whatsoever. Second, the per curiam majority bases its conclusion solely on equal protection and due process. It never even mentions the federal statute you keep insisting the Court says Florida was violating. In fact, it specifically contemplates a remedy that would violate that very statute you insist would make the proposed remedy illegal. This could not be done if developing constitutional standards were illegal. Period.

> [@](#):
>
> Now read Title III, Section 5 of the U.S. Code.

Already read it, as did the Court when Bush asked them to reverse Florida because it allegedly changed the rules after the election. And for at least the third post, I am pointing out to you that the Court (a) did not base its decision on this statute and (b) could not have contemplated a remand if doing so were illegal.

> [@](#):
>
> Because fixing it requires “substantial additional work,” maybe?

So in your dictionary, “substantial additional work” is synonymous with “illegal”?

> [@](#):
>
> Title III, Section 5, U.S. Code. You tell me how “substantial additional work” is possible under what that law says.

Nice argument, but it’s already been rejected by the Court. You see, the way courts write opinions is to explain the bases of their judgments. If they don’t say that something contributed to their judgment, then that something has played no role in the outcome of the case. And if it ain’t necessary to the judgment, it ain’t law for future cases. Now stop insisting that your argument has been adopted by the Court, because it most definitely has not been.

> [@](#):
>
> As a result, they only went as far as they felt they had to in slapping them back down. That’s why I think they talked about deadlines and left it, essentially, at that.

That’s downright laughable. You seriously think they omitted a major basis for their judgment because they were trying to be _polite_?

> [@](#):
>
> But if, as they state **repeatedly** the Florida Court was straying from Florida election law,

“Repeatedly,” huh? Tell ya what, go back to _Bush v. Gore_ and show me where the majority opinion says that the Florida court was violating _Florida_ law. Knock yourself out. It ain’t there.

> [@](#):
>
> explain to me how it isn’t a violation of the afore-cited federal law?

The najority didn’t address this issue, but I’ll give you my personal opinion: because as a matter of long-standing legal theory, a court does not “make” or “change” the law when it interprets a statute that was left vague or ambiguous by the legislature. And since the lege in this case had left “intent of the voter” as the standard without specifying how it was to be determined, that is an ambiguity that the lege must have intended the courts to resolve. But it doesn’t matter what I think about this issue, because the Court itself implicitly rejected the argument that setting constitutional standards would violate the federal election statute you are so baselessly fond of.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\
**Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/85 "2001-02-09T14:20:08Z")

</div>

Let’s see, **Milo** considers the words rigid and consistent to be interchangable (odd, then that he kept using the first and only when backed into a corner relented with the second). He seems to be the only one that doesn’t see substantial differences 'tween the two. (for example - two non erect penises may be absolutely consistent but not rigid 😃 )

and, when faced by direct quotes from **minty** that show the SC decision does **not** say what he keeps yelling that it does, he resorts to:

> [@](#):
>
> The net effect of SCOTUS’s ruling stopped the Florida SC from changing the rules after the election. If you disagree with that, disagree. But it’s true. And you being condescending doesn’t change that one whit.

So, the **words** of the decision isn’t what’s important, it’s the ‘net effect’. Ok, good to know - probably should tell the justices not to sweat their statements out 'cause the ‘net effect’ is all that’s important.

Then on to this little exchange:

**minty** says:

> [@](#):
>
> 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?

To which **Milo** replies:

> [@](#):
>
> Because fixing it requires “substantial additional work,” maybe?

This just amazed me. Let’s see, I apply for a permit to build a house on a highway. The court would issue an order telling me that I must have proper wiring in place instead of saying ‘no, you can’t build a house on the road…’

(aside to **RT** thanks for the back up while I was gone - I agree- the resorting to personal slights does nothing to enhance a debate)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 9, 2001, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/86 "2001-02-09T15:00:41Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by pldennison \*  
> **OK, matt, you’ve convinced me–Canada is the apotheosis of electoral procedure, while America is populated by naught but bumbling fools.**

Oh, for god’s sake get off that crucifix. Somebody needs the wood.

> [@](#):
>
> **Incidentally, after one develops a reputation for brutal honesty, when confronted with one’s own bigotries, one might want to avoid tossing around red herrings like one’s parentage, especially if one intends to admit to that bigotry in the next post.**

Right, I’ll remember this. Any criticism of a country’s national policies is now bigotry towards that country. Thus spake **pldennison** - thus let it be so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/87 "2001-02-09T15:22:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by RTFirefly_  
> In its ultimate decision, the USSC majority is quite clear that it’s the ‘intent of the voter’ standard, which had been in the FL election law all along, that gave rise to what they considered an equal-protection problem.

Not quite. It wasn’t that “intent of the voter” was unconstitutional, it was that there were no uniform standards for determining the intent of the voter. Other than that, I think your post above is spot-on.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\
**Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/88 "2001-02-09T15:23:34Z")

</div>

I’ll be happy to take up the issues of self-imposed martyrdom (O! The irony!) and unrecognized bigotries in another thread if you’d like, **matt**.

Outside of that, suffice to say that “Just do it like Canada does,” without reference to the differences in logistics, voters, and variety of races at the state, county and local levels isn’t really constructive criticism. I’m sure people would be happy to hear suggestions that come from an apparent knowledge of and familiarity with the process rather than a facile “Do it differently.” And intimations of stupidity and incompetence, as I’m sure you are aware, do little to make people receptive to the suggestions you **do** have.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/89 "2001-02-09T15:26:01Z")

</div>

Although I do not concur in the Pit-worthy parts. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/90 "2001-02-09T15:48:49Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I just went back and read the quotes you cited from the USSC’s majority opinion on the previous page. You know what? You haven’t read them, you ignorant turd.
> 
> They all say that the FL SC was straying from the equal-protection clause, and its failure was in having not written rules to ensure that each county judged ballots in a sufficiently consistent manner.\*\*

Nice how you qualified that with the _majority_ opinion to serve your purposes. From Bush v. Gore, Rehnquist opinion, joined by Scalia and Thomas (and already quoted once):

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

Whaddaya know? Instant evidence that shoots to shit your assertion that THEY ALL were talking only about equal protection.

You and wring and minty and every other person that considers this a partisan issue rather than a practical one just read what you want to read, over and over. You think you get to define all terms and make all interpretations, and any differing view, even with cited evidence - fuck, even with dictionary definitions - can be discarded.

How I got sucked into this exercise in futility with the MENSA Democrats High-Five Club again is to my own discredit. It won’t happen again.

Oh, and RT? Come call me an “ignorant turd” to my face and see what happens, you little Internet geek. My email is linked here. Just send me a note and I’ll give you directions. I’ll meet you halfway, how’s that?

Sorry to hijack your thread, Bricker. This issue goes beyond Florida and Bush and Gore, and I feel I’ve contributed to it being bogged down there.

FTR, “Intent of the voter,” absent any RIGID (or CONSISTENT, or fill in whatever word you’d like for standards that don’t shift depending upon the outcome that is desired) is a foolish and unworkable standard.

And all Democrats are right. Always. About everything.

Buh-bye.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/91 "2001-02-09T16:03:28Z")

</div>

Um, so you don’t know the legal difference between a Supreme Court opinion that only got three votes and one that got five? Big difference in legal effect, Milo. The majority is binding law. The concurrence has no effect whatsoever, not even more than any of the dissenting opinions. Surely, any semi-informed person recognizes this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\
**Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/92 "2001-02-09T16:26:02Z")

</div>

Typical **Milo** response:

> [@](#):
>
> You and wring and minty and every other person that considers this a partisan issue rather than a practical one just read what you want to read, over and over. You think you get to define all terms and make all interpretations, and any differing view, even with cited evidence - fuck, even with dictionary definitions - can be discarded.

This, from the person who insisted over and over, that the USSC declared ‘intent of voters’ to be an unconstitutional standard, thinks that ‘rigid’ and ‘consistent’ are the same word, and in response to ‘gee, the **written** words of the decision do not say what you think it does’, resorted to ‘well, the net effect of the decision was…’

And also typical is his ‘buy bye’. See ya in the next thread where you’ll post these same wrong arguments as if they are new.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/93 "2001-02-09T23:05:18Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Milossarian \*  
> Oh, and RT? Come call me an “ignorant turd” to my face and see what happens, you little Internet geek. My email is linked here. Just send me a note and I’ll give you directions. I’ll meet you halfway, how’s that?

Nah. 'Cause after you punched me out, you might make me listen to you give the same damned arguments all over again, and there’s a limit to how much pain I’m willing to suffer. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 10, 2001, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/94 "2001-02-10T04:54:30Z")

</div>

Well shoot, it looks like we’ve reached an end to this thread. Too bad, as I was thoroughly enjoying it. And if Milo had ever bothered to read and understand _Bush II_, he might have even been able to punch a couple minor holes in my arguments. ☹

I’ll just close this out by attempting to answer **Rick** ’s OP. No, I don’t think that voter intent is an unworkable standard, unless it’s uninformed by any (more or less) uniform standards to determine voter intent. Of course, what those standards should be depends mostly on what kind of voting mechanism we’re talkng about. The mere fact that there are dozens of different systems means that developing those standards is next to impossible–especially considering that no matter how detailed you make the standards, there are bound to be plenty of leftover votes where intent is obvious to any disinterested observer, but that still don’t count under whatever the standards may be. That’s why I think foolproof methods–rejected on the spot if there are problems–are necessary to prevent a repeat of the debacle we had last fall. National uniformity might be helpful too, but that’s really secondary to foolproof systems as far as I’m concerned.

See Milo? When you’re not spouting misinformed nonsense, I can be quite rational.

And oh yeah, **matt**? My ancestors got the heck right out of Canada. Too freakin’ cold for any rational person, and Quebec hates y’all anyway. And **pl**? We’re the ones with the fucked up election of the century, so matt’s allowed to criticize. Now everybody deal with it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/95 "2001-02-10T05:22:57Z")

</div>

**RTFirefly** said:

> [@](#):
>
> you ignorant turd.

[Moderator Hat ON]

I know you know better than this, RT. Quit it or Pit it. (And Milo, implied threats of violence are a no-no.)

[Moderator Hat OFF]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 10, 2001, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349/96 "2001-02-10T08:35:41Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by minty green \*  
> \*\*And oh yeah, **matt**? My ancestors got the heck right out of Canada. Too freakin’ cold for any rational person, and Quebec hates y’all anyway.

I’m sorry, who was that **we’re** meant to hate? I couldn’t hear you, I had _À Propos_ turned up too loudly. 😃

(And as for the weather, be careful what you wish for… we’re having a warm snap now, and all the snow melted and then turned to ice :eek:)

> [@](#):
>
> And **pl**? We’re the ones with the fucked up election of the century, so matt’s allowed to criticize. Now everybody deal with it. \*\*

Thanks for this. I was worried I was going to have to send Rick Mercer down to deal with him.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intent-of-the-voter-is-a-foolish-and-unworkable-standard/53349.md?page=4)