By the way: Kip Esquire patiently explains why it wouldn't have mattered if Al Gore had won the popular vote, even though he probably didn't:
This is, of course, utter nonsense. Al Gore did not win the popular vote -- the outcome of the popular vote will never be known, since many places with undisputed polling place victories never counted their absentee ballots or their disputed votes (what today we call "provisional ballots"). And let's not forget the "snowbird voter" fraud in Florida that almost allowed Gore to steal the 2000 election from Bush.
Far more to the point -- why should make it any difference if Al Gore did indeed win the popular vote? The candidates did not wage a popular vote campaign -- they waged an Electoral College campaign. The popular vote was, therefore, wholly irrelevant.
How would the vote have played out if the Electoral College had not existed and a popular vote was in place from the outset? Who knows? The candidates would have traveled differently, spent their money differently, postured and positioned themselves differently. And so on.
It would be akin to saying that, even though Player A won the tennis match, Player B made fewer unforced errors. So what? They weren't having an "unforced error" contest; they were having a tennis match. So too with presidential elections -- you can't "win" or "lose" a contest that was never fought.