Who wins a state's electoral votes in the event of a tie?

[Virginiá]

The race was a statistical tie, and another recount from scratch could just as likely to swing the race back as to keep the official recount result. The effect of the court picking the count that it did was effectively a coin flip from a statistician's viewpoint.

If that is indeed what would have happened every time it was recounted, then a literal coin flip doesn't sound like such a bad idea. After all, if it's a statistical tie like that, why should Bush win the state if it could also go to Gore upon a recount? If it is so close that they can't really figure out who won due to bad voting records, then a random way of picking the winner sounds better than a conservative Supreme Court majority picking the conservative candidate as the winner.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

The race was a statistical tie, and another recount from scratch could just as likely to swing the race back as to keep the official recount result. The effect of the court picking the count that it did was effectively a coin flip from a statistician's viewpoint.

If that is indeed what would have happened every time it was recounted, then a literal coin flip doesn't sound like such a bad idea. After all, if it's a statistical tie like that, why should Bush win the state if it could also go to Gore upon a recount? If it is so close that they can't really figure out who won due to bad voting records, then a random way of picking the winner sounds better than a conservative Supreme Court majority picking the conservative candidate as the winner.

The state never went to Gore nor should it have.  Bush won the state and the left couldn't stand the fact they lost.  It was a simple matter of being sore losers and here you are 16 years later over thinking yourself and taking time off of your life thanks to the CEO's of your party.  A random way of picking a winner is better than your right to vote you're saying?  You don't believe in freedoms do you?  Or is it any rules applicable in order to make sure your party wins because you've been taught to think your life will be easier?

[NeverAgain]

The race was a statistical tie, and another recount from scratch could just as likely to swing the race back as to keep the official recount result. The effect of the court picking the count that it did was effectively a coin flip from a statistician's viewpoint.

If that is indeed what would have happened every time it was recounted, then a literal coin flip doesn't sound like such a bad idea. After all, if it's a statistical tie like that, why should Bush win the state if it could also go to Gore upon a recount? If it is so close that they can't really figure out who won due to bad voting records, then a random way of picking the winner sounds better than a conservative Supreme Court majority picking the conservative candidate as the winner.

The state never went to Gore nor should it have.  Bush won the state and the left couldn't stand the fact they lost.  It was a simple matter of being sore losers and here you are 16 years later over thinking yourself and taking time off of your life thanks to the CEO's of your party.  A random way of picking a winner is better than your right to vote you're saying?  You don't believe in freedoms do you?  Or is it any rules applicable in order to make sure your party wins because you've been taught to think your life will be easier?

Personally, I support states rights on states matters. This was a state matter, and the State Court voted  to continue the recount, but it became a Supreme Court decision, and then they stopped counting with many votes not counted.

[muon2]

The race was a statistical tie, and another recount from scratch could just as likely to swing the race back as to keep the official recount result. The effect of the court picking the count that it did was effectively a coin flip from a statistician's viewpoint.

If that is indeed what would have happened every time it was recounted, then a literal coin flip doesn't sound like such a bad idea. After all, if it's a statistical tie like that, why should Bush win the state if it could also go to Gore upon a recount? If it is so close that they can't really figure out who won due to bad voting records, then a random way of picking the winner sounds better than a conservative Supreme Court majority picking the conservative candidate as the winner.

The state never went to Gore nor should it have.  Bush won the state and the left couldn't stand the fact they lost.  It was a simple matter of being sore losers and here you are 16 years later over thinking yourself and taking time off of your life thanks to the CEO's of your party.  A random way of picking a winner is better than your right to vote you're saying?  You don't believe in freedoms do you?  Or is it any rules applicable in order to make sure your party wins because you've been taught to think your life will be easier?

When it is a statistical tie in the vote, then yes a coin flip is better than a judicial ruling. At least it's clear to all that it was for all purposes a tie.

Better still would be a runoff, instant or otherwise, but we aren't set up for that in the presidency. If MN had laws like GA for US Senate then MN would have been decided by a runoff as it was in GA in 2008.

[pbrower2a]

The race was a statistical tie, and another recount from scratch could just as likely to swing the race back as to keep the official recount result. The effect of the court picking the count that it did was effectively a coin flip from a statistician's viewpoint.

If that is indeed what would have happened every time it was recounted, then a literal coin flip doesn't sound like such a bad idea. After all, if it's a statistical tie like that, why should Bush win the state if it could also go to Gore upon a recount? If it is so close that they can't really figure out who won due to bad voting records, then a random way of picking the winner sounds better than a conservative Supreme Court majority picking the conservative candidate as the winner.

The state never went to Gore nor should it have.  Bush won the state and the left couldn't stand the fact they lost.  It was a simple matter of being sore losers and here you are 16 years later over thinking yourself and taking time off of your life thanks to the CEO's of your party.  A random way of picking a winner is better than your right to vote you're saying?  You don't believe in freedoms do you?  Or is it any rules applicable in order to make sure your party wins because you've been taught to think your life will be easier?

Tie or indeterminate result (missing ballots destroyed or lost with no human culpability., as after a natural disaster or in a fire caused by lightning) -- in a state with an even number of electoral votes, split the electoral vote evenly. Odd number? coin flip, die toss, "lucky number" drawing or some recognized chance for a random result. The last elector need not be chosen  in the event that such would make no difference in the overall result a (269-269 split).

Culpable persons? If in any way connected to the election, their side loses. There must be a strong sanction against even the semblance of electoral fraud. Not connected? Treat as if there is no culpability.