the fight they have started to restore to the people the right to govern themselves without dealing with a stacked deck.”86 Measuring remedies’ efficacy in deterring further violations will require sustained studies over time to see if the acts that have been identified and adjudicated decrease, or whether the actions have no deterrence effect. If a decline is identified, further contextual research would be needed to isolate the change to the remedies used, and to ensure that other factors do not contribute to the drop in actions (such as a change in the electoral system). 6. A remedy should reinforce the perception of fairness and the credibility of the process Finally, effective remedies are essential for undergirding the credibility of the election dispute process, as well as the wider electoral process. Research focused on the effectiveness of institutions administering a particular system suggests that people largely react to the fairness by which authorities make decisions and exercise authority, and that these reactions “shape both their willingness to accept decisions and their everyday rule-following behavior.”87 Additionally, “these effects have been found to occur when substantial issues, such as personal freedom, are involved.”88 In terms of the perception of fairness and credibility of the overall process, citizens must believe the will of the voter is ultimately reflected in the election result, and that losing candidates have a right to redress via an effective dispute resolution process that considers all legitimate complaints. This right to redress encompasses a right to due process, whether a complaint or irregularity is dealt with administratively or through the court system. Where there are serious irregularities, the adjudication body should schedule a hearing and enable the claimants to be fully informed of the status of their complaints.89 The ECtHR has also affirmed that the right to a fair trial and access to a remedy is not limited to the courts, but applies to administrative proceedings. In Öztürk v. Germany the ECtHR held that it would be contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6…which guarantees to ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence’ the right to a court and to a fair trial, if the State were allowed to remove from the scope of this Article a whole category of offences merely on the ground of regarding them as petty . . . [c]onferring the prosecution and punishment of minor offences on administrative authorities is not inconsistent with the Convention provided that the person concerned is enabled to take any decision thus made against him before a tribunal that does offer the guarantees of Article 6.90 Studies of the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore suggest that in gaining acceptance of a controversial decision, the Court benefitted from the widespread public view of 86 DONSANTO, supra note 56 at 240. 87TOM R. TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS (2006) 88 Id at 284. Findings consistently suggest that the legitimacy of authorities and institutions is linked to the fairness of the procedures by which they exercise their authority. These findings link legitimacy to the degree to which institutions are “just” institutions. Hence, the pursuit of public support requires institutions and authorities to adhere to lay principles of justice. The effort to create and maintain legitimacy, in other words, causes institutions to focus on those who are being led, and their conceptions of procedural justice. 89 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, supra note 7. 90 Öztürk v. Germany, App. No. 8544/79, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1984).