Well for one, 500,000 votes is miniscule for an American election. It says nothing of who's more popular. That's an attempt by the writer to use a big looking number to make his point look better. Second, Gore didn't the majority, so that doesn't work either. A runoff would probably have been necessary, and Bush could have won a runoff.
With our country divided into states, something like the Electoral Collage is necessary. Without it, a few big cities would decide the close elections.
Most ridiculous is this idiot trying to make the electoral college look like a few hundred people deciding the outcome of the election. I'm sorry, but that's hilariously stupid. The electors are decided by the results from each state, and going state by state, each state getting a say, is the best way to go.
It was the equivalent of a coin toss landing on the edge instead of either side. Why is it so hard for DUMMYRATS to believe that coin leaned a little more in George W. Bush's favor in one close state?
That figure was also well within the margin of error (nationally). We would have had THOUSANDS of lawsuits as a county by county NATIONAL recount was conducted. We know that there was some democrat vote fraud (multiple residence voters - 2 states, college kids who went through the line several times, etc.).
0.52% (half a percent) doesn't impress me. The Goebbelsesque drum beat says that there was no mandate for President Bush. Albert Gore JUNIOR would not have been able to make such a claim either. Also, both candidates got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did and I didn't hear his leadership questioned by Big Media. The 2002 election also firmed up the nation's support for President Bush with Republican victories.