She got more votes in a system where opponent did not optimize his process for more votes, therefore it is a meaningless metric.

Indeed, but if it were based on raw votes then we'd probably not have had Mrs Clinton vs Mr Trump in 2016 because the timeline would have branched in 2000 based on the same metric.

It's an interesting example of arguing against a cause that's only relevant because of the effect it caused previously.

Legal votes? Not likely and also not likely she got the plural vote. Yes, even if 100% of the difference were legal (they aren't) it's not a majority, it's a plurality.