Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=991663
 
 

Footnotes (105)



 


 



Heads or Tails?: A Modest Proposal for Deciding Close Elections


Michael J. Pitts


Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

December 2006

Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, p. 739, December 2006

Abstract:     
Elections are fundamentally imperfect. For instance, machines break down and lines are long. A few elections are incredibly close, with only a few tenths of a percentage point or a couple of votes separating the candidates. A very small number of elections end in a dead-even draw. When this happens the winner is often decided by a game of chance -- a hand of poker, the drawing of lots, or the flip of a coin. In this brief, lighthearted Essay, the author develops the argument that because elections are fundamentally imperfect it makes sense to use a coin flip to decide the winners of close elections; that perhaps instead of relying on a curious alchemy of recounts and litigation to resolve close elections, we should rely on a different kind of alchemy -- the alchemy of the United States Mint.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 20

Keywords: elections, voting, democracy, law

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: June 7, 2007 ; Last revised: February 18, 2012

Suggested Citation

Pitts, Michael J., Heads or Tails?: A Modest Proposal for Deciding Close Elections (December 2006). Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, p. 739, December 2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=991663

Contact Information

Michael J. Pitts (Contact Author)
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law ( email )
530 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,034
Downloads: 47
Footnotes:  105

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.219 seconds