That’s exactly what I wondered, Ali. But then, why ‘sombre’ rather than ‘somber’?

Ambiguity. Who or what is declared authentic? The ambiguity would not exist if the word "results" had been singular, as it could well have been - there was only one election (of the Electoral College) in each state. Of course, had it been singular, it would be the lawmakers being declared authentic, probably not what is intended!

Otherwise nothing, or nothing much.

Fowler's has an interesting entry on "normalcy".

Apparently "normalcy", "normality" and "normalness" all entered the language in the middle of the 19th century. Even the word "normal" did not acquire its present meaning until about 1840. Before then, since 17th century, it just referred to rectangles and perpendiculars.

As far as "normalcy" is concerned, its use in British English is "rare (and disliked)", but in North America, especially USA, it is the more frequent form. In Indian and East Asian English "normalcy" is, as it were, the norm.

"Normalness" has not caught on anywhere.

Another point: How can something "extraordinary" be "normal"?

See also https://english.stackexchange.com/quest … -ridiculed

I’m not surprised!

Not just another point, Geoff, but a very good one, too! I would have said “remarkable” rather than “extraordinary”.

Thanks, Ali. That does indeed make perfect sense! I had thought you were responding to my question

rather than your question (echoed by me) about whether the word ‘normalcy' was used instead of 'normality' because the piece was written by a US journalist working for the BBC.

Of course it’s more likely than not that it would be understood, but the point is that writing “normalcy” in an article intended for a British audience is like writing “manoeuvre” in an article intended for an American one.