They, for one value of they, retained their integrity. Our standing state legislators, in our unique non-partisan unicameral (only one house) made it quite clear to the MAGA politicos (our governor who is bought and paid for by our former even wealthier governor [see my two cites in post 28 above] and g-d Lindsey Graham who flew into the state to pimp for winner-take-all) that the MAGA ‘theys’ did not have the legislative votes to pull that off. Don’t bother, take your red hats and go home.
And no, gerrymandering those one or two blue electoral votes away would take redistributing that took a third of Omaha and Lincoln (where the blue votes are concentrated) and then matching each of those tiny (by geographic size) slices from the far eastern edge of the state and somehow run a connecting corridor from each out to pair up with huge vast swatches of our deep red rural ranching state, 30 deep red counties covering hundreds of square miles in each newly gerrymandered district.
We’re pretty practical here in Nebraska, we invented Vise Grips, Reuben sandwiches and Kool Aid after all, and we have a saying: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
That’s how you gerrymander when you want to turn a minority into a majority. When you already have a majority and want to turn it into a supermajority, it’s a lot easier. For Nebraska, it’d be as simple as dividing the state into three horizontal stripes, which would guarantee all of their electoral votes going to the Republican, and all three Representatives being Republican, instead of the current situation where they sometimes have one Democratic representative or elector.
But, like I said, they choose not to do that.
They chose to stop the recount at a point where Bush was ahead. The entire recount was, in fact, eventually finished, and Gore won it. There’s no “likely” about it; it’s known.
Or at least, so the voting machines said. Voting machines made by a company whose CEO promised to deliver the election to Bush. Did he succeed at what he promised he’d do? Hard to say, but I think it’s foolish to completely dismiss the possibility.
In Eastern Nebraska, far from the presidential battleground states, a drama is playing out that could, in a perfectly plausible November scenario, have history-altering repercussions for the nation’s future and the next president — and it may all come down to one man.
A single Republican state senator from Omaha, Mike McDonnell, has so far stood firm against a push by former President Donald J. Trump, national Republicans and the Nebraska G.O.P. to change Nebraska from a state that divides its electoral votes by congressional district to one that awards all of them to the statewide winner. Maine is the only other state without a winner-take-all system.
There is exactly as much evidence that the CEO of.Diebold rigged the Ohio results as there is that Hugo Chavez had bamboo ballots from China planted in Maricopa County, AZ.
Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race.
< snip >
The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.
ETA: More importantly, I think, is the Supreme Court picked the guy they wanted. Even if they were proved right they did not know it at the time. And if wrong (which they were) there is no remedy.
Um, not quite that easy. As @BippityBoppityBoo pointed out, the counties in which Omaha and Lincoln are located contain close to half the state’s population. Given that those two counties are in close proximity to each other, drawing lines as you suggest would be impossible. Take a look at the current congressional district map and see for yourself.
In 2001, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major United States news organizations, conducted the Florida Ballot Project, a comprehensive review of 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected from the entire state, not just the counties that conducted manual recounts.[3] The project’s goal was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used in the voting process, including how different systems correlated with voter mistakes. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. Based on the review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes.[4] On the other hand, under scenarios involving review of limited sets of ballots uncounted by machines, Bush would have kept his lead. In one such scenario—Gore’s request for recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties—Bush would have won by 225 votes.[a] In another scenario (if the remaining 64 Florida counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots the Florida Supreme Court ordered on December 8, applying the various standards that county election officials said they would have used), Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.[b][81]
My understanding is that the consortium hand count was conducted in exactly the manner Gore wanted, and in doing so Bush would have won. There were other hand counts, of types that Gore did not pursue and which SCOTUS offered no opinion on, that concluded Gore won.
So, it’s accurate to say, I think, that SCOTUS ultimately did not impact the outcome. It’s also reasonable to say that Gore got the most votes. Please note, I am not commenting on the merits of the SCOTUS ruling, merely on its practical impact.
I think the real issue is that the supreme court, nine people (but really only five needed), thought it ok to pick a president with no more reason than who they liked.
And we see republicans trying to find ways to kick the election-count can down the road to let the supreme court do it again. And we all know which way that will go.
I thought absentee voting usually slightly favors Republicans? Since a lot of absentee ballots are cast by military personnel who are away on deployment?
I sincerely doubt it. The entire reasoning behind Bush v. Gore was to prevent a state from not certifying on time. No state has ever refused to certify a presidential election, it would be a gross violation of the 14th amendment to allow one to do so, and no judge in the country is going to allow it to happen.
I happen to agree that we still don’t know for sure, and likely never will, who got the most votes. It was just that close.
It’d be like counting the pink and white Good & Plenty candies—filling several dump trucks. Slightly more white ones? Count ‘em again. Oh, this time there’s just a few more pink.
ISTM those refusals to certify were at the local level.
What happens when the state itself refuses to certify? And not just cuz but because they point to problems in verifying the results (what do you think Georgia’s hand-count thing is about)?
Unless you are doing the bidding of Georgia republicans the the republican governor pardons you.
The point is, it is clear republicans are laying the groundwork to call the election into question and leave it to friendly judges (or the US legislature) to hand it to them.
You mean the same governor of Georgia who adamantly refused to interfere in the election in 2020 when Trump himself personally asked him to, and who under state law explicitly does not have the power to issue pardons?
The US legislature doesn’t get a vote and no judge in the country is friendly enough to see a state say “We’ve decided that nobody gets to vote this year” and say “Yeah, that sounds cool with us”.