rom Shanghai to Moscow to Montreal, politicians and people in the street yesterday pronounced the dramatic, unresolved presidential election a triumph for American democracy.
Most were fascinated but unworried either by the uncertain result or by the possibility that the world's most powerful country might be run by a candidate who had lost the popular vote.
World markets, whose skittishness makes them systems of international worry, also showed no signs of alarm, and the US dollar stayed strong against other leading currencies.
The election ''really shows the health of American democracy,'' a Japanese diplomat said on condition he not be identified.
Some Muscovites were reminded of a nugget of totalitarian wisdom, commonly attributed to Josef Stalin, to the effect that it is not important how they vote, it is important how they count the vote.
The uncertainty over the outcome of the vote had Russians marveling over a system that does not automatically confer victory on the leading vote-winner, and an electorate that appears to trust officials.
''Aren't Americans worried about whether they can trust the people counting the vote?'' asked Antonina Sviblova, a shopkeeper.
After retracting its hasty congratulations to Bush, the Kremlin issued a statement saying it was ''determined to pursue active dialogue'' with the United States, no matter who wins.
That reaction was replicated by politicians across Europe.
The French tend to like to lead the continent, so it was not surprising that the French president, Jacques Chirac, was the first European leader to hail Bush's victory. French diplomats defended Chirac, noting that he had sent the telegram only after Vice President Al Gore had conceded - a concession he retracted. The Dutch government made the same move.
Within half an hour of faxing a statement congratulating Bush on behalf of the German people, the office of President Johannes Rau sent another fax begging journalists not to use it.
Many Europeans, meanwhile, were trying to figure out how it was that Bush might be declared the winner even though Gore probably got more votes.
But not all Europeans were surprised by the confusion across the Atlantic. Carlos Sanchez, a spokesman for the Spanish government, said Spanish newspapers had devoted extensive coverage to explaining that there was a distinct possibility that the loser could win the popular vote.
In Canada, there was astonishment that the outcome was still twisting in the warm winds of Florida, but there seemed to be no widespread sense of unease at the situation. The US political system seems stable to Canadians split by deep regional and linguistic animosities.
Canada is holding its own national elections later this month, but the squeaker to the south dominated the news yesterday.
Stockwell Day, the right-leaning challenger hoping to upset Prime Minister Jean Chretien, marveled that the race in the United States, which has nearly 10 times Canada's population, would be won or lost by the sort of narrow margin that determines races for modest districts in Canada.
''This would be a close one even in a Canadian constituency,'' Day told reporters in Montreal. ''It's a great salute to democracy.''
Even in countries whose leaders are fond of pointing out flaws in American democracy, some expressed respect for the US system.
In Shanghai cafes last night, young Chinese who have been exposed to the US political system through the Internet and television said the possibility of a discrepancy between the popular and electoral vote surprised them, but that it did not make them doubt the strength of the model.
Told that Vice President Gore might win in votes but lose the election, Yin Zi, 29, manager of a Chinese Web site, declared the Electoral College ''ridiculous and stupid.'' But, she added, ''I still think America is a democratic country by any measure.''
Zhang X., 32, editor of a Chinese arts magazine, said he had faith in a ''tried-and-true'' method the United States had been using for 200 years. ''If they still use the Electoral College system, there must be a reason for it.''
Not surprisingly, countries with the poorest relations with the United States were most contemptuous of the electoral process. The reverse was also true.
Iraq said it would make no difference whether Bush or Gore won.
In Cuba, the Cuban Communist newspaper Granma called the elections the most irregular in US history, citing the erroneous predictions of the television networks, Gore's retracted concession call to Bush, and the victory by the deceased Missouri governor, Mel Carnahan, as examples of what it called ''a party of laughs.''
In South Africa, which has mixed relations with the United States, the mess was proof to some that while the United States has appointed itself the exporter of democracy, its system isn't perfect.
''Maybe the lesson here is that no system is foolproof,'' a senior South African government official said. ''This is an argument for different countries having different models of democracy.''
In Israel, which moved a few years ago from a pure parliamentary system to direct elections of the head of government, the result evoked memories of the 1996 balloting, when Israelis went to bed thinking Shimon Peres had won and awakened to find the vistor was Benyamin Netanyahu.
Many other democratic countries can relate to what is for Americans a new experience, said Pippa Norris, a British scholar who is teaching at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
In countries like the Netherlands, coalition governments in which the lead party received fewer votes than the leading opposition party are not unusual, and ''it takes two months after the election to know who's going to be in the government,'' Norris said.
''We've waited a whole year for this,'' she said. ''Waiting a few more days is not going to cause a lot of concern.''
Kevin Cullen in Europe, David Filipov in Russia, Indira Lakshmanan in Asia, Richard Chacon in Latin America, Colin Nickerson in Canada, all of the Globe Staff, and correspondents Kurt Schillinger in South Africa and Dan Ephron in Israel contributed to this report.
