Not a crisis - yet

A closely-contested vote puts the system to the test

By US affairs analyst Gordon Corera

It is less than two years since the last time we were told the United States was in the midst of a "constitutional crisis". That time it was the impeachment of the President, this time its a disputed election.

But despite the endless legal shenanigans, its not clear yet whether America is mired in a true crisis that threatens the system.

That may still happen, particularly if legal wrangling and appeals take the Florida count all the way to the Supreme Court, and especially if this means that when the electoral college meets on 18 December the nation's fourth most populous state and its population are excluded from picking the 43rd president.

The Clinton impeachment took place according to prescribed legal procedures

Disenfranchising the 15 million residents of the state would be a huge political problem, although it would still not put the constitution to the test - it is clear that the electoral college merely needs a majority of the electors who have been selected and not representatives from every state.

Equally, the whole system was designed with the possibility - even the likelihood - that the college might not come to a decision and instead pass it onto the House of Representatives.

Precedents

The real crisis would be if the college or the House failed to elect a president in time for inauguration day on 20 January.

It is possible to argue that, as with impeachment, the 'crisis' has shown the strength, not the weakness, of the US political system

And there are plenty of historical parallels for the current impasse. The 1888 election saw one candidate lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.

More pertinently, in 1876 the voting in three southern states (including Florida) was disputed. It took months before a Congressional Committee divided on partisan lines and voted nine to eight to give the states and the Presidency to the Republican party - even though most historians think the Democrats really won the states.

All of these events left a bitter taste for a while, but none endangered the overall system in the longer term.

Sign of strength?

And so, at the moment, it is possible to argue that, as with impeachment, the "crisis" has shown the strength, not the weakness, of the US political system, as deep political divisions are restrained by the rule of law and the limits proscribed by the constitution.

There could be yet more court cases before the next president is chosen

Developing countries may mock America's inability to select a new president, but in many other parts of the world, a disputed election would be decided by the soldiers not the lawyers.

In fact, just as with impeachment, the crisis shows that the rule of law remains the solid foundation of the US political system.

Scars

Despite all the fuss, the impeachment of the president receded from view relatively quickly and the procedure for trying a president worked well (and most people think it ended with the right result, at least constitutionally).

Whoever finally stands up and takes the oath of office is going to have a difficult ride through his term of office

But impeachment did leave some bitter partisan scars, and that is the most likely outcome of the Florida and 2000 election imbroglio.

Whoever finally stands up and takes the oath of office on 20 January is going to have a difficult ride through his term of office, with questions raised about his legitimacy and whether he "stole" the election.

So what we undoubtedly have is a political crisis - it might still become a constitutional one but is not quite there yet.