Yes, I was meaning to add a note about the fact that today, the majority of the "get out the vote" or "registration drive" efforts that I see are politically motivated. They hope to increase registration and turnout from a class of voter who is more likely to vote for them. It doesn't have to be that much of a difference to be worthwhile to candidates, and there are neighbourhoods and demographics that swing fairly strongly to one party or another.

With 50% turnout, candidates know that the right get-out-the-vote drives can be the most cost-effective way to add to their total. I can see both good and bad things about that. With high turnout, candidates must shift to swaying undecided voters. Of course they also worry that uninteresting races mean certain blocks of voters don't go to the polls, affecting the minor races on the same ballot which are never enough to bring most voters out. "Ultra-easy voting" would alter those as well.

As for the alternate history, indeed I don't know if it would be better under Gore, but unlike many elections, it's pretty clear this is one where the consequences would have been markedly different. Love him or hate him, GWB is a very bold President. But I didn't want to debate that, but rather to state that it sometimes does make a difference.

It is not an accident that elections have been close. In a 2 party system, both parties will tend towards a position that gets them a victory, but only a marginal one, because going further would require more compromise. You will only get a landslide when one party is particularly smart in picking their candidate, or the other party is particularly stupid, or the times are particularly polarized and there is no way for the competing party to change enough to pick up 50% of the vote without seeming to be copycats or wusses.