Do you side with those who believe a new vote in Palm Beach is the only fair way to resolve the current election dispute? Or do you think that the absence of fraud means that the outcome, however flawed it may be, must be respected. This current election nightmare is actually a classic example of competing ethical norms. In an ironic twist of fate, the two norms accurately reflect the dominant philosophies of the two parties themselves.

On one side of the debate we have the champions of "fairness of outcome." No serious observer disputes the statistical anomaly of the over-large Buchanan vote in Palm Beach County. The obvious cause is the butterfly ballot that did not precisely match candidates’ names to the holes that needed to be punched. The number of votes cast in error clearly exceeds Vice President Gore’s current deficit, so a Bush victory on this basis is deeply unfair.

On the other side sit the partisans of "process fairness." The ballot was enlarged to aid elderly voters, and this necessitated the butterfly format. Both parties signed off on the ballot in advance. Yes, with perfect hindsight the result may have been unfortunate (another example of no good deed goes unpunished!), but the process was fair, and we understand that the rules of the game should not be changed at the end. Any attempt to remedy the problematic outcome would itself be unfair. Permitting voters in Palm Beach to vote again would allow people to change their minds (something many others elsewhere in the country might like to do).

No one is surprised that William Daley, the Vice President’s campaign manager, aggressively considered legal action the morning after the election. The presidential prize is so tantalizingly close. The Republican reaction is equally predictable. Self-interest is, after all, a powerful motivator. Yet their actions are also consistent with the substantive differences that still help define the two political parties. At some risk of overgeneralization, Democrats want a fair outcome, while Republicans want a fair process. This distinction is perhaps the clearest in their differing views on affirmative action and tax policy.

Imagine a city whose population is equally divided between whites and non-whites. Suppose its police force is 90% white and the top officers are all white. To outcome-oriented people this is an egregious social problem that requires a forceful response. They might advocate numerical goals and a clear plan to achieve them in short order. This is the case for aggressive affirmative action. Process-oriented people may agree that the current imbalance is unfortunate, but they might assert that numerical goals (quotas by another name) lead to hiring and promotion processes that are inherently unfair. They usually advocate "vigorous" attempts to enlarge the talent pool as a better way to rectify the imbalance over time. Does this debate sound familiar?

Democrats tend also to have stronger views about what constitutes a fair distribution of income and wealth. They favor more aggressive use of the government’s power to tax and spend in order to achieve a more equitable economic outcome. Progressive income taxes coupled with spending programs targeted at lower income groups are the traditional means. Republicans, by contrast, view the market process as a fairer way to allocate society’s economic benefits. They are generally more suspicious of policies that directly redistribute income.

When former Secretary of State James A. Baker urges the Gore camp to give up the "unending legal wrangling," he affirms his faith in the fairness of the process by which (he thinks) George Bush has legitimately won the Presidency. William Daley has a different view. "The presidency of the United States should not be determined by technicalities. It needs to be determined by the will of the people." This is a very clear statement of outcome fairness. These two contrasting views are compatible with certain core values of their respective political parties. So, the next time you hear a spokesperson for one of the campaigns make what sounds like a self-serving argument, remember, they’re only doing what comes naturally.