ASHINGTON - The astonishing election recount in Florida will resolve the most closely fought presidential campaign of modern times. What is really at stake is not only the identity of the winner but also the credibility of the political system.
At the heart of the entire American system is a simple but remarkable assumption, the notion that the nation's leaders - though assailed by critics, attacked by rivals, ridiculed by satirists - nonetheless have a legitimate claim on their offices. That assumption supports the exercise of political prerogative, preserves the value of elected office, and guides the orderly transfer of power - all essential elements of our system.
The eventual winner of the White House, the political establishment, and the public all have a stake in the recount that is continuing in Florida - but an even greater stake in winning widespread acceptance for its verdict. All need a crisp, unambiguous resolution to this electoral impasse. None can tolerate a situation where doubts swirl, where recriminations fly, where questions about the legitimacy of power pollute the atmosphere.
But this autumn's unresolved presidential election will cause upheaval no matter how clearly the result is declared and no matter how gracefully the principals embrace it - and will substantially affect the way the winner governs.
The 2000 election already is raising new questions about the Electoral College and its inherent prerogative to block rather than carry out the public will. It is prompting new skepticism about the practices of the powerful institutions of the media, which have the ability to illuminate events but, as the events of the past two days show, also possess the potential to sow confusion and doubt.
And it is also putting a special burden on both candidates, whose comportment in the coming days will help shape the public's acceptance of the eventual result.
For the winner, the customary chore of curing the divisions in the nation will be all the more difficult - and all the more important. For the loser, the difficult task of coming to peace with defeat will be all the more painful - and all the more urgent.
As a result, the deadlock itself will shape the inclinations and administration of the eventual winner, who almost certainly will be prompted to make a gesture to heal the wounds of this extraordinary period of limbo and to reflect the very small margin of victory he will claim. There are no exact precedents, but those gestures could include policy initiatives, Cabinet appointments, pledges of good faith, or even a special role for the losing candidate.
At the same time, the loser faces the difficult task of accepting the voters' verdict with selflessness and finality. The best precedent involves a political figure seldom celebrated for grace, former vice president Richard M. Nixon, who, with the advice of President Eisenhower, forswore a challenge to the results in 1960 so as to avoid throwing the nation into upheaval.
The exercise the election officials are conducting in Florida may provide a persuasive answer to skeptics who wonder about the value of a single vote. For years to come, the 2000 election will provide a ready response to Americans who question whether it is rational, or meaningful, to go to the polls.
Even so, this deadlock comes in a period of serious challenge for the political system as a whole.
The slim margins in Florida and in the popular vote tallies underline how evenly Americans are divided over political questions. At the same time, Americans are impatient and distrustful of their government, with public levels of trust in government lower than in the period leading up to Watergate, according to Gallup Organization survey research.
That only contributes to the difficulty the eventual winner will have in his struggle to govern.
The new president will face a Congress that itself is all but deadlocked but that, in recent years, has possessed a toxic tendency to exploit differences among its members rather than to search for common ground among them. Together, the president and the Congress face the possibility that these divisions - plus the traditional institutional antagonism between executive and legislature - could become even more dire and, from the public's viewpoint, even more intolerable.
But first the new president has to be selected, and the way that is accomplished will shade everything that follows.
