You are right that the voter does have a responsibility to make sure that their ballot is punched correctly. However, if the intent of the voter is obvious, but they didn't follow the exact letter of the rules in punching out their ballot, shouldn't their vote still count the way that they obviously wanted it to? I'm not saying to use it as an excuse to manufacture votes, I'm talking about a situation where the intent of the voter is clear but they didn't follow the exactly letter of the law. In that case, the spirit of the law says that the vote should count, I believe.
That's the kind of attitude that people hate about bureaucracy; the idea that process matters more than results, and that following the rules exactly is more important than intent. The spirit of the law should take precedence over the letter of the law, in my opinion. If the ballot is partially punched but it didn't go all the way through it should still count as a vote in a manual recount.
I think your comment captures a key difference in the way Republicans and Democrats see the world.
You indicate the intent of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Republicans believe the letter of the law defines the rules, and we should act accordingly. If one doesn’t like the letter of the law than the proper course is to change it , not rationalize it away.
Case in point: in the recount Republicans/conservatives like Wonk believe the law is the law: In FL the law is that each voter must assure that their ballot is cleanly punched through. Hence a vote is never ambiguous, an improperly punched ballot was a non-vote. But as you indicate, Democrats/liberals believe the letter of the law is of less importance than what they think the law meant to achieve, hence a partially punched ballot should count.
Here in NJ we had the Torricelli incident: He withdrew from the Senate race after the legal deadline, but the Democrats still wanted to (and succeeded in) changing ballot. To Republicans it was a clearly written law and allowed for no replacement. To Democrats it was equally clear the law should be ignored because the voter should have a “choice”.
I think if you look at many political controversies, you’ll find the literal vs intent difference occurring.
Interesting point zork, I hadnt really thought of it that way. The reason is that in the two examples you mentioned the literal interpretations favored republicans and the Intent favored democrats. Could you provide an example where each party stuck to the beliefs you outlined even though it was against them??
Btw ur contention makes some sense and I'm not disputing it; I'm looking for more evidence.
