Post-Election Litigation and the Paradox of Voting

University of Chicago Law Review Online (2021), https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2021/03/10/salib-krishnamurthi-election/

24 Pages Posted: 4 Feb 2021 Last revised: 17 Apr 2021

See all articles by Peter Salib

Peter Salib

University of Houston Law Center

Guha Krishnamurthi

University of Oklahoma College of Law

Date Written: December 31, 2020

Abstract

Economists will tell you that your vote does not matter. Or at least it does not matter if what you care about is who wins a large election. Because the margin of victory is irrelevant to determining the winner, all of the votes beyond the single vote that puts one candidate ahead of the other have absolutely zero effect on the outcome. Thus, the only election in which your individual vote matters at all is the election that, without you, would end in a tie. Given the sheer unlikelihood of a tie, if voting has even minimal cost, or is even mildly inconvenient, you are almost certainly better off abstaining.

That, at least, is the traditional story. But recent elections, including the most recent American presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, tell a different one. They show us that, at least in close, high-stakes American elections, votes do not decide the winner. Litigation does. And critically, vote margins do matter in litigation. The larger the margin of victory, the less likely litigation will overturn a result: as the pre-litigation margin of victory grows, the available arguments become fewer and less credible, and thus less likely to change the outcome. Thus, it is beneficial for a candidate to accrue votes beyond the tipping point of the election, at least until the “margin of litigation”—the number of votes that post-election litigation could plausibly overturn.

In light of these observations, this Essay proffers two novel claims about the paradox of voting: First, we contend that, based on the mechanics of post-election litigation, it is possible that at least some votes should rationally be cast in expectation of having an electoral effect. Second, for closely related reasons, we argue that the margin of litigation can impact the perceived legitimacy of an election. It is therefore possible that at least some votes should be rationally cast to ward off the dangerous results that may arise from perceptions of illegitimacy, including decreased governmental efficacy, but also civil unrest and violent conflict.

Keywords: election law, litigation, election, legitimacy

JEL Classification: K10, K40, K41

Suggested Citation

Salib, Peter and Krishnamurthi, Guha, Post-Election Litigation and the Paradox of Voting (December 31, 2020). University of Chicago Law Review Online (2021), https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2021/03/10/salib-krishnamurthi-election/, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3771587 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3771587

Peter Salib

University of Houston Law Center ( email )

4104 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Houston, TX 77204
United States

Guha Krishnamurthi (Contact Author)

University of Oklahoma College of Law ( email )

300 Timberdell Road
Norman, OK 73019
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
87
Abstract Views
518
rank
395,700
PlumX Metrics