After a truly extraordinary week in US politics, the two presidential candidates, their campaign teams and the wider electorate have no option but to await the outcome next week of the recount in Florida, including postal votes. That announcement is likely to be the determining moment. If he ends up the loser to Mr George W Bush, Mr Al Gore must make a fateful political decision on whether to mount a legal challenge against the result. If he does so, he would put the legitimacy of US democracy to an unparalleled test by dragging the issue through the courts and risking tit-for-tat challenges in other marginal states. He would also put his own political reputation on the line, since he must weigh such consequences of legal action against the statesmanlike bonus he might earn for a future presidential campaign by a graceful concession of defeat. Historians draw an apt parallel with Mr Richard Nixon's decision to accept the 1960 result, despite evidence of fraud in Chicago that benefitted John F Kennedy. The Florida recount has highlighted that state's bizarre political record, including its share of corruption and electoral manipulation. But on this occasion there has so far been no firm evidence of fraudulent interference with the voting system. It would be necessary to prove that if a legal challenge against the result was to be sustained. It looks as if it was badly designed voting papers in Palm Beach County which caused 19,120 of them to be rejected, rather than culpable negligence, or an effort to deprive the voters of their rights. The same point applies to the surprisingly high vote there for the right wing Mr Pat Buchanan.
The case for re-running the vote in that county looks strong, but it is hard to see how a political consensus to do so could be found, nor how a case for federal legal intervention could be assembled without creating unacceptable precedents elsewhere. So it is back to the result of the recount. It would be sensational indeed if Mr Gore were to win it, but it still looks more likely that Mr Bush will be the victor. Mr Gore will come under huge pressure to concede if he loses the recount. Mr Bush has been quietly assembling his transition team. It is remarkably similar to his father's, with figures such as the former chief-of-staff Gen Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, Mr James Baker and the foreign policy adviser, Ms Condoleeza Rice, in the foreground.
How the next week's business is handled matters greatly for the future of US democracy. Due and fair process, legally defined, is a central part of its political culture, with an exemplary appeal far beyond its shores. Were its legitimacy to be eroded by a prolonged headstrong quarrel over the result, all would be losers - not least whichever man would eventually be declared the winner. The difference between results in the popular vote and the electoral college has already been highlighted. Campaign financing which allows such leeway for corporate donors has also eroded public trust in the electoral process, as is reflected in the relatively low turnout. That trust is a precious aspect of the US constitutional order. It has been made more vulnerable by this week's remarkable events.
