OK, that seems reasonable as long as one is certain that it's 49.9999% rather than a loose standard of "pretty close". What you wouldn't want is to make possible for the clear loser in a 48% - 52% race to demand a coin toss. Or maybe you do: by the precepts of your argument, maybe that would be fine.

I'm uneasy with the random approach suggested by the article for fear that a truly crazy candidate might win the lottery, but I'd be good with having all the candidates above some large baseline (say, 30% of the vote) get a proportional shot at the win. I think I'd probably want it to be proportional to the counted share even if there is a margin of error, though.