There is no such thing as a perfect electoral system. But there are in fact plenty of good reasons to question the way that America goes about electing its president: the current process takes far too long, it persuades far too few people to vote, and, above all, it is far too dominated by money.
The American election followed all the rules of a good thriller. Suspects like John McCain and Bill Bradley came and went. For months the plot twisted and turned, the lead changing repeatedly right to the end. And then, in the last chapter, the real contest narrowed dramatically to the two main characters fighting it out in a small space. A handful of votes in Florida: it was really that close. Florida is governed by George W. Bush’s brother, Jeb; its election was overseen by the state attorney-general, who just so happened to be Al Gore’s campaign manager!

It seemed that we would not know the final result until all the absentee votes were counted.
Some argue that such a tortured result amounts to an indictment of American democracy. Given the extreme closeness of the result, it is always going to be difficult for either man to claim that he had a great popular mandate. Many of Bush opponents are likely to claim that the election was stolen from them.
Therefore, the president-elect will probably have to do more than make friendly noises towards the opposition. That might mean holding back on his trillion-dollar tax cut.

Full House: After the Bush triumph, America has all three branches--House, Senate and presidency under Republican control for the first time since 1952.
Exactly half of voters with an annual income of $30,000-50,000 voted for Gore; 46% went to Bush. One step up the income scale, you see the pattern in mirror image: 50% of voters earning $50,000-75,000 went for Bush, 47% for Gore. High-school graduates divided down the middle, with 48% to each man. Despite all Gore’s rhetoric about “fighting for working families”, 46% of those who described themselves as “working class” voted for Bush.
These Republican inroads into the Democrats’ traditional sources of support explain why the vote was so close. But they reflect, rather than clarify, a bigger mystery: why Gore lost, considering the state of the economy. His decline during the later stages of the campaign was little short of stunning. In September, it seemed that he was about to soar away from Bush on an updraft of credit for economic performance.
In the late 1990s, some Democrats argued that Clinton’s adoption of market-based ideas had gone far enough. Moreover, Al Gore’s attempt to convert old folk by raising the alarm over Social Security backfired: 57% of voters said they liked Bush’s proposal to privatize part of the system and they backed Bush by two to one. A stunning 70% of voters said they owned shares; they went for Bush by 51% to 47%.
In essence, this election produced a mandate for moderation, not for populism. Voters refused to give a clear mandate to either side.