Editorial: Pundits, not public, trembling

Saturday, Nov. 18, 2000 | 2:55 a.m.

Within 24 hours after Election Day, a growing tide of pundits, academics and television commentators warned there could be chaos if the next president wasn't quickly determined. The incredibly tight election between Al Gore and George W. Bush made the race too close to call, and some analysts fretted that Democratic legal challenges -- to ensure that an accurate vote was taken -- could prolong the declaration of a winner. Some commentators even said it might be best for the nation if Gore conceded. Otherwise, they said, not only would the United States' standing be compromised around the world, but there also might be a constitutional crisis if the impasse wasn't resolved immediately.

Most Americans, though, were left scratching their heads at the breathless hyperbole from the chattering class. National public opinion polls showed the chasm that existed between the nervous-Nellie pundits and Americans. For instance, a Newsweek poll taken on Thursday and Friday after the election found that 72 percent of adults believed that making sure the count was fair and accurate was more important than getting the results resolved fast. In the same poll, 69 percent said a recount and delay are proof that the U.S. electoral system is working.

The most powerful office in the world was at stake, but the public demonstrated a better understanding -- and faith -- than the pundits in the constitutional and legal process that we use to decide who wins elections. After all, nearly everyone in the nation has witnessed a local or statewide race decided by a handful of votes, which usually results in a recount that can take weeks before a winner is declared. If there ever was a time to make sure the man who rightfully won was seated, it would be when deciding who assumes the world's most powerful office.

It's ironic that many of these same analysts who believed Gore should consider conceding also worked for the networks that prematurely called Bush the winner on Election Night. One would think that after such an egregious error they'd be hesitant in trying to force a decision upon the American public until all the votes were counted.

Sure, the international media poked fun at the balloting mistakes -- but so did our late-night comics and many other Americans. As the Washington Post reported last week, in a roundup of opinion from around the globe, there also was a recognition of how this nation could so openly discuss, and calmly handle, such an impasse. A columnist for Britain's conservative Daily Mail, Ann Leslie, reported from Austin, Texas, that she has "fallen in love with America all over again" because of the dispute over the election. "I did not see any tanks massing. There were no rioters; there was no tear gas, no smoke rising from distant burning villages," she wrote. "What other country in the world, however fallibly, believes so firmly in the rule of law? What other country believes ... that the people's right to speak and be heard is at the heart of its system? If a belie f in the rule of law means a proliferation of lawyers, well, so be it."

Admittedly, the longer it takes to decide a winner, the less patience the public has in dragging out a contested election through the courts. Still, it is heartening that Americans have again shown that they understand what is most important: getting it right so that all voters have their say. The Constitution, and our political system, have shown an amazing resilience over more than 200 years, resulting in orderly transitions when elections are held. Americans shouldn't be worried by the events of the past two weeks -- they should be proud.