ARTICLE ANALYSIS 4
The story regards three professors from the universities ofDartmouth and Stanford. It is evident from the articles that thethree professors sent mailers to 100,000 eligible voters in the stateof Montana asking them to vote for Supreme Court judges. The fourcandidates were placed in the spectrum of political people such asMitt Romney and Barrack Obama (Derek, 2014). The experiment, whichwas meant to be non-partisan, attracted outrage from the voters, aswell as from the state. The controversy arose as a result of the useof the official state’s official seal in the mailer. This had theimplication that the state of Montana had approved of such usage,which was not the case (Derek, 2014).
Additionally, the experiment depicted the Supreme Court candidatesas having political leanings. Whereas the professors at theuniversities aimed at finding out the effect of such politicalleanings to the voting pattern and voter turnout, the state and thevoters viewed it differently. This raised controversy over the entireexperiment which made the universities to send apology letters to theover 100,000 voters who received the mailers asking them to ignorethe entire experiment (Bartlett, 2014).
This study, which was meant to be non-partisan would have clearlyshown how political leanings affecting the voting pattern and voterturnout. The putting of candidates on ideological range was meant todetermine whether voters were more likely to turn up and vote whengiven such information (Derek, 2014). It is clear that the use of thestate’s official seal without its approval is illegal. The use ofthe seal implied that the state had approved the study, which was notthe case (Michelson, 2014). I totally disagree with the experiment.It is abundantly clear that the experiment was meant to benon-partisan, but the researchers put a political leaning to thecandidates. It is also evident that the universities had not approvedthe research and therefore it was being done illegally. Theexperiment also failed to observe the ethical standards. Theresearchers would have sought permission or approval from therespective universities before embarking on the experiment.Additionally, it was prudent for the researchers to seek the approvalof the state before using the official seal. In fact, it would havebeen a better idea carry out the experiment without using theofficial seal. This would have reduced the controversy involving theexperiment. Lastly, the researchers needed not to have politicalleaning in their experiment.
Derek, W. (2014). Professors’ Research Project Stirs PoliticalOutrage in Montana. New York Times. Retrieve from:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/upshot/professors-research- project-stirs-political-outrage-in-montana.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
Bartlett, T. (2014). Dartmouth, Stanford apologize for politicalexperiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education, University WorldNews. Retrieved from: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141106101541509
Michelson, M. R. (2014). Messing with Montana: Get-out-the-VoteExperiment Raises Ethics Questions. Retrieved from:http://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/messing-with- montana-get-out-the-vote-experiment-raises-ethics-questions/