[17] 当然，笔者并非主张法院是解决选举争议的唯一机构。事实上，如果选举委员会可以对控制选举舞弊发挥更大的作用，无疑可在相当程度上减轻法院的负担。例如在高雄市长选举中，如果选委会可以在发现陈菊阵营的负面突袭后及时制止，或未能制止但有权在认为有必要时延迟选举，等到司法确认和澄清事实后再进行选举，那么无疑将有助于节省选举资源并保证选民获得准确的竞选信息。目前，选罢法第64条只是授权选委会在「遇到天灾或其它不可抗力情事，致不能投票或开票时」变更选举日期，而没有考虑在选举前夕发生诸如高雄市长选举中的突袭事件所可能产生的严重影响。当然，如果授予选委会在必要时延迟选举的非常权力，则必须谨慎设计相关的抗辩和救济程序，尤其要保证选委会的中立性。目前，世界各民主国家的选举委员会都普遍由各党派大致按比例组成。例如美国的联邦选委会(Federal Election Commission，简称FEC)委员也是由总统任命，参议院批准，而民主共和两党中任何一党的成员均不得超过多数。FEC有6位正式成员（目前只有5人在任），任何一党均不得超过3人。事实上，布什总统任命的FEC主席(Robert D. Lenhard)是民主党人。参见FEC的官方网站，。这是共和党的总统和民主党占多数的国会谈判妥协的结果。各州选委会的结构也大同小异，在此不赘述。
参考文献
Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Election Fraud in Mexico: A Case Study of Elections in the State of Michoacan on July 12, 1992, 16 Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 307 (1994).
Developments in the Law: Elections: VI. Postelection Remedies, 88 Harvard Law Review 1298.
Developments in the Law: Voting and Democracy, 119 Harvard Law Review 1188 (2006).
A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th Ed.), London: Macmillan (1915).
Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper-Collins (1957).
Robert Brett Dunham, Defoliating the Grassroots: Election Day Restrictions on Political Speech, 77 Georgetown Law Journal 2137 (1989).
John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (New Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2006).
Cleveland Ferguson III, The Politics of Ethics and Elections: Can Negative Campaign Advertising Be Regulated in Florida? 24 Florida State University Law Review 463 (1997).
James A. Gardner, Protecting The Rationality of Electoral Outcomes: A Challenge to First Amendment Doctrine, 51 University of Chicago Law Review 892 (1984).
Rachel J. Grabow, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission: Protecting the Freedom of Speech or Damaging the Electoral Process? 46 Catholic University Law Review 565 (1997).
Richard L. Hasen, Beyond the Margin of Litigation: Reforming U.S. Election Administration To Avoid Electoral Meltdown, 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 937 (2005).
Melvin Hinich and Michael Munger, Analytical Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press (1996).
Thomas Kane, Malice, Lies, and Videotape: Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan in the Modern Age of Political Campaigns, 30 Rutgers Law Journal 755 (1999).
Wendy J. Keefer, Contesting Election Results in South Carolina, 12 South Carolina Lawyer 22 (2000).
Robert L. Kerr, From Sullivan to Nike: Will the Noble purpose of the Landmark Free Speech Case Be Subverted to Immunize False Advertising? 9 Communication Law and Policy 525 (2004).
Donald Kommers, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, Durham, NC: Duke University Press (1989).
Sarah LeCloux, Too Close to Call? Remedying Reasonably Uncertain Ballot Results with New Elections, 2001 Wisconsin Law Review 1541 (2001).
Clifford B. Levine and David J. Montgomery, Post-Election Litigation in Pennsylvania, 41 Duquesne University Law Review 153 (2002).
William P. Marshall, False Campaign Speech and the First Amendment, 153 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 285 (2004).
Douglas C. Michael, Preelection Judicial Review: Taking the Initiative in Voter Protection, 71 California Law Review 1216 (1983).
Russell A. Miller, Lords of Democracy: The Judicialization of Pure Politics in the United States and Germany, 61 Washington & Lee Law Review 587 (2004).
Steven J. Mulroy, Right without a Remedy? The “Butterfly Ballot” Case and Court-ordered Federal Election “Revotes”, 10 George Mason Law Review 215 (2001).
Peter Quint, Free Speech and Private Law in German Constitutional Theory, 48 Maryland Law Review 263.
Evan Richman, Deception in Political Advertising: The Clash Between the First Amendment and Defamation Law, 16 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 667 (1998).
Finkelstein and Robbins, Mathematical Probability in Election Challenges, 73 Columbia Law Review 241, 242 (1973).
Michelle L. Robertson, Winning at All Costs: Election Fraud in the Third Circuit: Marks v. Stinson, 40 Villanova Law Review 869 (1995).
Robert Neal Webner, The Fact-Opinion Distinction in First Amendment Libel Law: The Need for a Bright-Line Rule, 72 Georgetown Law Journal 1817 (1984).
理查德德·皮德斯：“民主政治的宪法化”，田雷译，载张千帆组织编译，《哈佛法律评论•宪法学精粹》，法律出版社2005年版，第149页
张千帆：“论美国总统大选中的宪政问题”，《中外法学》2001年第4期。
张千帆：《西方宪政体系（上册·美国宪法）》，北京：中国政法大学出版社2004年第二版
张千帆：《西方宪政体系（下册·欧洲宪法）》，北京：中国政法大学出版社2005年第二版。
张千帆：《宪法学导论——原理与应用》，北京：法律出版社2004年版，第48-51页。
选举公正的司法保障（三）——论负面竞选的审查标准
论国有土地租赁制度的优势及存在的问题