The glory of democracy is in its uncertainties and the strength of democracy is in its certainty. In recent days we have seen much of both. I am acutely aware that observers here, in Europe, and in many corners of the world find unsettling the lack of a quick resolution in the US presidential election, but Americans are confident in their belief that our system works and has withstood the test of time.

That opinion is reflected in a November 14th NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which found that only 8 per cent of the American public believes there is a constitutional crisis as a result of the electoral uncertainty. Contrary to some newspaper headlines across Europe, the country is not in a shambles, and Americans go about their daily lives relatively unaffected by the dispute over votes. Just about everyone in the United States realises the current situation is temporary and results from the closest election in more than a century.

To be sure, the situation has revealed flaws in the US election system, particularly in the mechanics of voting and in the tabulation of votes. But no one has suggested fraud or vote-rigging. The irregularities are technical, or based on human imperfection. They can and will be resolved. Elections must be fair but it is unrealistic to expect they be perfect.

The election also has ignited a long standing issue in the US - whether the president should be elected by popular vote rather than the state-by-state electoral vote. It is true that in rare instances in American political history, the winner of the electoral vote, which determines the race for president, has narrowly lost the popular vote. It has happened only three times in our history, the last time more than 100 years ago. This, indeed, could happen again this year.

Whatever the final result, however, I want to stress that the US election system is not the cause of the current uncertainty. A close election is. And even if the electoral college, which was established to protect the interests of small states, were abolished, an election this close based upon the popular vote would have resulted in a similar situation to the one we face now. Recounts would have been the order of the day.

In addition, it must be said that extremely close elections pose problems in all democracies, not just the American form. In a parliamentary system, for example, a close election might result in a coalition or minority government. Or it might result in a caretaker government that would soon give way to another general election.

But as a presidential system the American system is different. It mandates elections for president under a fixed schedule every four years with a winner-take-all formula. So the situation cannot be solved by the formation of a coalition government. The system requires that a clear winner be determined and that presents an obvious challenge, given the closeness of the vote.

In addition, the US system at both the state and federal levels is based on the strict separation of powers among executive, legislature and judiciary with, as we have seen, checks and balances among all three - and with the courts, in their role as interpreter of the Constitution, having the final word. That is why judges inevitably have become involved in this dispute. Ultimately, the American system is based on the rule of law.

Pending a settlement of the issue, Americans have the patience to see the process work itself through.

With so much at stake, and shared power precluded by the Constitution, it is not surprising that each presidential candidate is insisting on a fair and accurate vote count and that each has resorted to the courts - as is the right of every American under the law and the Constitution - to seek redress of grievance. In the end the system has worked, and continues to work, precisely as intended under the Constitution, even though some aspects of the current situation are unprecedented.

Moreover, the polls indicate that even if people elsewhere in the world are concerned about the current uncertainty in America, Americans themselves see no crisis, partly because the current president remains in office until the new president is inaugurated next January 20th. The current administration is taking care of business and America's responsibilities to its allies during this interim period, and Americans know that.

Reforms will no doubt be suggested - and I agree some are needed - as a result of the problems revealed by the closest election in modern US political history. By way of comparison, there is a difference of less than one hundredth of 1 per cent in the vote in this election compared with a difference of just under 1 per cent of the vote in the last close election - between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960.

The suggested reforms will no doubt range from changing the way citizens vote, to the abolition or amendment of the state-by-state system of voting through the Electoral College. Indeed, over the years, more than 700 resolutions have been introduced in Congress to discard or reform the Electoral College. But Americans are reluctant to change fundamentally an electoral system that they believe has served them well simply because of one very close election that is still not resolved, but soon will be. As a former elected official from the nation's least populous state, I support our system of voting and am confident that the outcome of the election will reflect the strength of a democracy based upon the twin pillars of a constitution and respect for the rule of law.

So as Americans gathered to celebrate Thanksgiving this week, we were reminded of one of our oldest traditions - a coming together of friends and foes to give thanks for the blessings we have received.

Ambassador Michael J. Sullivan was appointed by the Clinton administration in 1998 and presented his credentials to President McAleese in January 1999.