Introduction
The 2000 presidential election in Florida became notorious for its controversial outcome, with a mere 537-vote margin separating George W. Bush and Al Gore. One of the most significant factors contributing to the confusion and accusations of voting irregularities was the “butterfly ballot” used in Palm Beach County, Florida (Montjoy & Slaton, 2002). The ballot was designed by Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore, who came under intense scrutiny for her role in the debacle. When assessing Ms. LePore’s actions against the ASPA Code of Ethics criteria, it becomes clear that she did not act ethically in several respects.
Application of Ethical Principles to Ms. LePore’s “Butterfly Ballot”
Serve the Public Interest
First, Ms. LePore did not advance the public interest, one of the main criteria in the given code. She prioritized her interests in making a ballot that she believed would be easy to read rather than prioritizing the interests of the public in ensuring that their votes were accurately recorded (King et al., 2019). The butterfly ballot design was confusing for many voters, leading to a higher-than-normal number of invalidated votes, which significantly impacted the election’s outcome.
Uphold the Constitution and Law
The second criterion was also not followed, as Ms. LePore did not uphold the Constitution and the law (King et al., 2019). The Florida state constitution mandates that ballots must be designed to record the voter’s intent accurately. However, the butterfly ballot design failed to meet this standard, causing many votes not to be accurately recorded. Moreover, when requested, Ms. LePore refused to conduct a manual recount, which violated Florida law.
Promote Democratic Participation
The third criterion that was not followed by Ms. LePore is promoting democratic participation. Rather than being open, transparent, and responsive, she failed to provide adequate guidance on the configuration and operation of the ballot (Montjoy & Slaton, 2002). This lack of information left many voters confused and frustrated, and their voices were not heard in the election.
Strengthen Social Equity
In addition, Ms. LePore did not strengthen social equity: the butterfly ballot design disproportionately affected minority and elderly voters, who were more likely to have difficulty reading the small print and making sense of the layout. By failing to ensure that the ballot was designed in a way that was accessible to all voters, Ms. LePore contributed to existing inequalities in the voting process.
Fully Inform and Advise
Ms. LePore did not fully inform and advise, constituting the fifth criterion of the discussed Code of Ethics. Instead of providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely information about the ballot’s design and how it would work, she failed to communicate with the public effectively. This lack of communication meant that voters did not have the information they needed to make informed decisions, further undermining the election’s legitimacy (King et al., 2019).
Demonstrate Personal Integrity
Additionally, Ms. LePore did not demonstrate personal integrity. By prioritizing her interests over those of the public, she failed to adhere to the highest standards of conduct expected of public officials. Her actions eroded public confidence and trust in the election process, which is essential to the functioning of democracy.
Promote Ethical Organizations
The seventh criterion, promoting ethical organizations, was also violated by Ms. LePore’s design. The failure to prioritize the public interest and act by the law and democratic principles undermines the ethical standards expected of public organizations (“Practices to Promote the ASPA Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Her actions contributed to a flawed and unjust election process that undermined public confidence in the democratic process (Montjoy & Slaton, 2002).
Advance Professional Excellence
Last but not least, Ms. LePore did not advance professional excellence. She did not act competently or ethically by failing to design a ballot that accurately recorded voters’ intent and by failing to communicate effectively with the public. Moreover, her refusal to conduct a manual recount, despite requests to do so, further undermined her competence and professionalism.
Summary
Based on the evaluation against the ASPA Code of Ethics, it is clear that Ms. LePore did not act ethically in the case of the Butterfly Ballot. To act ethically in this situation, Ms. LePore should have taken steps to fully inform and advise the public of the potential issues with the design of the Butterfly Ballot. This could have included holding public forums to discuss possible challenges, providing information about the design in local newspapers and media outlets, and soliciting feedback from voters and other stakeholders. Additionally, Ms. LePore could have consulted with experts in the field of ballot design to ensure that the design of the Butterfly Ballot was straightforward to understand. This demonstrated her commitment to promoting professional excellence and advancing the public interest.
Conclusion
Overall, Ms. LePore’s actions in the case of the Butterfly Ballot fell short of the standards outlined in the ASPA Code of Ethics. However, it is essential to recognize that ethical decision-making is a continuous process that requires ongoing reflection, evaluation, and improvement. By acknowledging and learning from her mistakes, other stakeholders and parties in policy-making can strengthen their capabilities and promote ethical organizations that serve the public.
References
King, S. M., Agyapong, E., & Roberts, G. (2019). ASPA code of ethics as a framework for teaching ethics in public affairs and administration: A conceptual content analysis of MPA ethics course syllabi. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(2), 176-197. Web.
Montjoy, R. S., & Slaton, C. D. (2002). Interdependence and ethics in election systems: The case of the butterfly ballot. Public Integrity, 4(3), 195-210. Web.
Practices to Promote the ASPA Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Web.