1. 720133896 PLCY 340
Case Study Paper: Statesman or Sap? Al Gore in Florida in the 2000 election
The 2000 Presidential election ended with the controversial decision of recounting the votes in
the state of Florida. Such an unprecedented conclusion to the long electoral season insured that
both political campaigns would carry out carefully designed courses of policy action to
accomplish the objective of winning the presidency. However, a significant distinction between
the two political campaign strategies emerged. While the manipulation framework was utilized
in both political campaigns, Al Gore sought to incorporate multiple moralistic frameworks in his
manipulative political agenda, particularly efficiency and equity, whereas George W. Bush
pursed a solely manipulative political approach. To detail these different utilizations of
manipulation, this paper will organize around presenting the particular issues of interest,
explaining the relevant frameworks, and applying those frameworks to the case’s issue itself.
Issue: The issue of interest in this case study is regarding the policy decisions taken by the Gore
and Bush campaign groups during voter recounting processes in the state of Florida.
This issue came into significance when Gore pursued manual recounts in only four of Florida’s
total 67 counties. While this policy option lacked assertiveness, opposing this was the Bush
campaign’s “willingness to play hardball” (Kiron, 2000, p. 188). The Bush campaign filed a
lawsuit against Gore, asserting Gore violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection
section, by favoring specific voters, from choosing a recount of only four counties. Bush’s
allegations severely “undermined the public support that Gore truly wanted to count every vote”
(Kiron, 2000, p. 185), when instead the Gore campaign believed its decision was doing a service
to the state by not requesting a recount of all counties. This political confrontation shaped the
way the Bush and Gore campaigns approached the remaining recounting process.
1
2. The recount process of absentee ballots represented the second major factor influencing the Bush
and Gore campaign policy decisions. The Republican Party’s handling of absentee ballots in
Florida’s Seminole and Martin counties, both favoring the Republican Party (Kiron, 2000, pg.
186) was extremely disputed. In Seminole County, the Republican Party members added missing
voter identification numbers to absentee ballot applications after such numbers were not present.
In Martin County, Republican Party members returned absentee ballot applications to voters to
add the identification numbers, later given back in their corrected form. These added absentee
ballots represented 7,500 additional votes in Bush’s favor. As Kiron notes, the Republican Party
stressed ballot compliancy in counties considered as Democratic strongholds, however in
counties supporting of their own party, ballots are counted as a way “to respect the intent of the
voter” (Kiron, 2000, pg. 186). More noteworthy, Gore did not respond to this ballot exploitation
by the Republican Party, “staying neutral” (Kiron, 2000, pg 186), feeling it was more important
to respect the notion of “counting all the votes.” These ideologies persisted regarding oversee
absentee ballots. Even with obvious electoral tampering that had taken place through Bush’s
political campaign, Gore, while “well aware of the tactics,” ”choose to ignore advice from
several quarters to challenge overseas military ballots on the grounds that Bush had benefited
from unequal treatment” (Kiron, 200, pg. 187), and did not pursue action against Bush.
The issue seen through these policy decisions is regarding why Gore and Bush felt the need to
act out in the manner that each candidate did. What provided both candidates the impetus to take
such policy options? Specific frameworks will be applied to the issue of interest above,
specifically the political actions each campaign took. This will allow for a greater understanding
and appreciation for this significant period in United States political discourse.
2
3. Rule: In this case study, the specific frameworks that are most applicable are manipulation,
efficiency, and equity. The manipulation framework, regarding personal values and the
policymaker, is most relevant amongst the three frameworks presented. Manipulation entails it is
acceptable for individuals in positions of political and social importance to utilize unethical
means and decisions, so long as these are justified by a positive result, and the policymaker holds
a sense of guilt in carrying out the action. The foundation of the manipulation framework is
established through Machiavelli’s work titled, “How a Prince Should Keep his Word.”
Machiavelli argues, “princes who have accomplished great deeds are those who have cared little
for keeping their promises and who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by
shrewdness.”1
Manipulation is used for when the “ends to justify the means,” (Bondanella and
Musa, 1979, pg. 135). Machiavelli states that “a wise ruler should not keep his word when such
an observance of faith would to be to his disadvantage,” (Bondanella and Musa, 1979, pg. 134)
giving rise to the idea that individuals of power should not be held to the same ethical standard as
normal individuals. Building upon this idea, Walzer, through his work “Political Action: The
Problem of Dirty Hands,” argues that the manipulation framework is commonplace in the realm
of political action2
. Manipulation for Walzer is in all political life, because the actions required
by public officials are much different to those in everyday settings. Walzer states that using
manipulation in politics “is a central feature of political life that it arises not merely as an
occasional crisis…but systematically” (Cohen, Nagel, Scanlon, 1974, pg. 66). Walzer notes that
“no one succeeds in politics without getting his hands dirty,” (Cohen, Nagel, & Scanlon, 1974,
pg. 66) giving credence to the belief that manipulation is an absolute necessary if an individual is
going to be successful as a politician. Getting hands dirty, through means of manipulation for
1
Bondanella, P., & Musa, M. (Eds.). (1979). The Portable Machiavelli. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
2
Cohen, M., & Nagel, T., & Scanlon, T. (Eds.). (1974). War and Moral Responsibility: A Philosophy and Public Affairs
reader. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
3
4. example, is easy based on the nature of politics – because “politicians claim to act for others but
also themselves and they rule over others as well” (Cohen, Nagel, Scanlon, 1974, pg. 76).
Essentially, the manipulation framework involves the political actor going against his or her
private morality for the goal of achieving a greater public good.
The second relevant framework, efficiency, evaluates the policy option from the potential,
associated benefits and costs. This calculation is achieved through a cost-benefit analysis,
whereby alternative projects, identifying relevant stakeholders, listing and operationalizing
impacts, have to occur for the efficiency framework to be achieved. Efficiency involves utilizing
the utilitarianism rights framework, and imposes assumptions to make the policy identifiable,
namely through monetizing the benefits and cost of a proposed policy. As Rhoads notes, the
efficiency framework is useful especially in governmental and political scenarios, particularly
because costs are simple to calculate, and the cost benefit analysis allows policymakers to
consider all relevant constituents.3
However, the ability to calculate benefits is more difficult, as
it involves making estimates based on future expectations. In addition, using the efficiency
framework can lead to subjective or preferential estimates regarding the potential benefit or cost
of a policy option as well (Rhoads, S.E., 1985, pg. 130). Along with potential bias, and difficulty
in calculating specific policy benefits, efficiency often leaves out discussions of equity and does
a poor job at explaining certain costs or benefits, such as time, reduced illness, improved
environmental conditions (Rhoads, 1985, pg. 131), known as ultimate goods. Overall, the
efficiency framework utilizes the most quantifiable assessment of a policy option through the
utilitarian lens of using potential costs and benefits.
3
Rhoads, S. E. (1985). The Economist’s View of the World: Government, Markets, and Public Policy. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
4
5. The final relevant framework is equity, specifically John Rawls’s first principle regarding the
theory of justice as fairness. Equity deals with the distribution of primary goods through
governmental sources. To achieve this distribution one must enter the original position, which
involves individuals in the position “of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and
commit themselves to principles of social and political justice.” 4
To reach the original position,
individuals must act having no knowledge of their personal characteristics or social position,
known as the veil of ignorance. Once the veil of ignorance is established, then Rawls’s first
principle of justice as fairness is achieved. This first principle framework of equity states, “each
person is the have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar scheme of liberties for others” (Rawls, 1999, pg. 53). By basic liberties, Rawls is
referring to political liberty, such as the right to vote, and freedom of speech and assembly
(Rawls, 1999, pg. 53). Individuals should have access to these basic liberties and primary goods.
Overall, Rawls’s first principle framework of justice as fairness ensures that all individuals have
an equally protected and respected right, obligated to be recognized by both society at large and
the government, to the most basic set of social liberties and avenues of self autonomy.
These three detailed frameworks, manipulation, efficiency, and equity, will now explain the
policy decisions made by both Bush and Gore presidential campaigns during the Florida vote
recounting process.
Analysis: The political actions taken by the Bush and Gore campaigns provide an interesting
pattern that remained through the recounting process. Bush viewed this process as “an extension
of pre-election political campaign” whereas Gore took a more “high-minded approach” towards
the entire procedure (Kiron, 200, pg. 188). This difference in political ideology allowed the Bush
4
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
5
6. and Gore campaigns to “carry out a distinctive strategies of manipulation” (Kiron, 2000, pg.
189). The use of the manipulation in the Bush campaign was much more influential compared to
the political campaign run by Gore. Bush’s aggressive campaign strategies were prime examples
of Walzer’s theory of manipulation, as his campaign acted in its own interests and agenda. The
manipulation framework states that political agents use manipulation in order to achieve a
greater overall good – in this case, winning the presidency. The Bush campaign filled legal cases
against the Gore campaign, objecting the four country manual recount, yet decided against a
statewide recount of Florida, completely aware that Gore would be the electorate winner if such
a recount were to take place – a prime example of being unethical for political success.
Moreover, through the federal cases filed, Bush’s campaign illustrated Gore as refusing to count
every vote, manipulating public opinion of Gore, when Gore really was pursing an efficient
political solution. In addition, the Bush campaign’s manipulative practice of adding voter
identification numbers to absentee ballot applications that supported the Republican Party, and
then claiming that these ballots were completely valid was questionable. These votes helped
Bush carried the state of Florida, but their legitimacy was without any doubt lacking. Regarding
the counting of absentee ballots, the Bush campaign advocated for lenient standards for
processing military oversea ballots while also demanding that regular absentee ballots, especially
those to favor Gore, be held to much higher standards of scrutiny. This was done through
claiming military oversea ballots were marked in the United States, which was clearly false, and
then producing a 52-page document focusing on detecting invalid civilian ballots. Bush
explicitly manipulated the entire Florida electorate process with the goal of using manipulation
to attack, as Kiron notes, “to induce others to do your bidding” (Kiron, 2000, pg. 160).
6
7. Unlike the Bush campaign, Gore took a multi-framework approach to manipulation, utilizing the
efficiency and equity frameworks, while also basing manipulation on deception. It becomes clear
that the Gore campaign was not nearly as manipulative as Bush’s political actions. Manipulation
in Gore’s campaign strategy was not used as an offensive means, rather through the defensive
means of deception, as Gore intended to deflect from others from interfering with his plans
(Kiron, 2000, pg, 160). Gore realized that he needed to take action, based on his responsibilities
to his close political allies, the Democratic Party, and the country in general. His manipulative
act of requesting that four counties be recounted, out of a possible 67 counties, was a politically
influenced decision, in part because the four counties selected were in Democratic favoring
territories, however; deception was involved in that Gore actually used the ethical framework of
efficiency in making his decision. Gore’s supporters likely thought the campaign was making a
sound strategic decision to count democratic favoring areas, when in reality the framework of
efficiency was the essential framework explaining the decision. Gore wanted “to expedite a
resolution to the election process and protect the country from a protracted battle over the
presidency” while feeling “reluctant to file 67 different lawsuits and appear litigious.” Gore
weighted out the potential benefits and costs of the various policy options available, and found
that unnecessarily prolonging the election was going to do more harm to his political future than
good. In addition, the inactivity that Gore showed in contesting the dubious absentee ballot
practices of the Bush campaign, seemed as a manipulative act based on the premise public
opinion would share Gore’s sentiment of the recounting process as merely a “adjudicative
procedure” (Kiron, 2000, pg. 188). Much of this decision was based on the equity framework,
through Gore’s campaign wanting to “focus on the message – count all the votes” (Kiron, 2000,
pg. 184). Gore wanted to maintain this framework of equity. However, the equity framework that
7
8. Gore employed in his manipulation did not extend to the point where he was perceived litigious
or controversial – he still wanted to maintain the efficiency framework at the same time, for
example by only requesting a manual recount in four counties. Gore’s campaign can be seen as
relying on various ethical views, particularly efficiency and equity, shaping his distinct strategy
of manipulation compared to that of the Bush campaign.
Conclusion: The 2000 vote recounting process in the state of Florida detailed two distinct
campaign strategies aimed towards the ultimate political goal – winning the presidency.
Manipulation determined how each candidate’s campaign planned approach developed
throughout the recounting process. However, as the policy actions indicated, both the Bush and
Gore campaigns sought to use their own version of manipulation. Gore’s campaign utilized
multiple ethical frameworks, namely efficiency and equity, as a means of achieving a
manipulative and deceptive political discourse. Bush’s campaign relied strictly on manipulation
to achieve the campaign’s policy goal. These differing approaches to manipulation show how
such a common phenomenon in politics can be much more distinct and unusual than expected.
8