When Are Elections Good Enough? Validating or Annulling Election Results received unlawful donations, or misused state resources.11 It is not necessary to prove quantifiably that the result of the election was changed by such conduct, provided the margin of victory was less than five percent. In other places, annulment of the results in a certain percentage of polling places will automatically result in annulment of the entire election.12 While such approaches, which might be described as “prescriptive,” have the advantage of simplicity, they can be problematic because the presence or absence of a particular irregularity, even a very serious one, is not always a reliable indicator of the fairness or legitimacy of the election result.13 One can imagine a scenario in which prescriptive rules lead to the annulment of an election whose outcome, tainted as it may have been by irregularities, clearly reflected the will of the voters. Under such circumstances, an annulment would be unnecessary and could do lasting harm to public confidence in elections. For example, in the Mexican case mentioned above, a minor misuse of state resources could be cited to undo an otherwise fair election, with all of the associated financial and political costs.14 Conversely, an adjudicator applying a prescriptive law might find it impossible to annul an election, the results of which have clearly been affected by fraud or error, because of the absence of one of the prescribed grounds. Prescriptive approaches that are poorly designed can lead to unforeseen or unintended consequences in practice. In Afghanistan in 2010, certain “triggers” were established to determine when the election dispute resolution (EDR) body should investigate the legitimacy of ballots in a particular ballot box. These triggers included: polling stations with results of 600 votes or more (more than 100 percent anticipated turnout); polling stations with more than 100 votes that were 95 percent or more in favor of only one candidate; or both conditions in the same polling station. However, weaknesses in procedures and training led to these triggers being used, in some cases, as conclusive evidence of outcomedeterminative irregularities, rather than as a first step in an investigation process.15 The more or less automatic exclusion of the ballot boxes in question contributed to, rather than reduced, the atmosphere of uncertainty that prevailed during and after the election. The importance of considering the impact of irregularities on the outcome of an election is illustrated by the annulment of the 2010 Icelandic Constitutional Assembly election. The Icelandic Supreme Court invalidated the election of Assembly members based on multiple irregularities, including the use of ballots and voting screens that did not protect secrecy of the ballot. The court weighed the impact of these irregularities as a whole but paid particular attention to the lack of protection for secrecy of the 11 Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, September 15, 2017, http://portal.te.gob.mx/sites/default/files/consultas/2012/04/08_fede_cpeum_decreto_150816_ingl_s_pdf_1243 7.pdf. 12 ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, Op Cit, note 10. 13 Venice Commission, Opinion on the Electoral Legislation of Mexico, Opinion No. 680 / 2012 CDL-AD(2013)021, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2013)021-e. 14 While judicial interlocutors in Mexico have told us this provision in the law would not be interpreted as an automatic trigger for annulment, but rather as a trigger for further investigation, it is not hard to imagine that a party seeking an annulment would argue for a stricter interpretation of the law. 15 International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Electoral Integrity Assessment, Afghanistan 2013, 68. 3