This is the incredible election that will be marvelled at and dissected by the historians and the political scientists for the next 100 years and longer. That it took place in the most powerful country in the world, which is also the cradle of modern democracy, makes it only weirder.
Millions of Americans dutifully went to the polls and cast their ballots for the next president. As they sat in front of their TV sets later that night, they saw amazing scenes.
Vice-President Al Gore, who earlier in the night seemed to have the election won with victories in the big states on each coast and in the Midwest, was by 2.30 a.m. on his way to tell supporters in downtown Nashville that he had conceded victory in a call to his Republican opponent, Governor George Bush.
Florida, which the TV networks had declared early in the count as a win for Mr Gore, was now switched to Mr Bush, so delivering him the election and the White House for the next four years.
But just before Mr Gore stepped out to give his concession speech to his stunned supporters, he got a message that there would have to be a recount in Florida where a 50,000-vote margin for Mr Bush had suddenly dwindled to a few hundred and Mr Gore could still win.
Mr Gore called Mr Bush a second time to say he was withdrawing his concession. All bets were off until Florida's voters were recounted. Mr Bush's reply has not been revealed.
Foreign ambassadors who had rushed to congratulate Mr Bush had to withdraw their good wishes. Viewers who had gone to bed with Bush safely elected woke up with still no new president. Newspaper headlines changed hourly. It was chaos.
But out of chaos some stability must emerge or we are all in trouble. The US, and the world for that matter, cannot stand much more of this bungling over the election of the man who must lead for the next four years.
The media, meaning the TV networks, bear much responsibility for the theatrical bouleversements which marked election night. But it is the archaic 18thcentury electoral system which could mean that Vice-President Al Gore wins more votes while Mr Bush wins the Electoral College and thus the Presidency.
The networks were irresponsible to call Florida for Mr Gore within minutes of the polls closing there on the basis of exit polls which did not reflect the closeness of the voting.
As dawn broke yesterday we learned that after a full count Mr Bush led Mr Gore by several hundred votes out of nearly six million cast. How could the crude methods of an exit poll correctly reflect that razor-edge situation?
The networks blundered on, putting Florida back into the "too close to call" column, then into the Bush column and then back to "too close to call".
As fate would have it, Florida was the crucial state to decide the election because of the electoral college system. Florida had the 25 votes which Mr Bush and Mr Gore needed to reach the magic number of 270 after all the other states had declared.
So, even if the media had not miscalled throughout the night, there would still have to be the recount. Steps will presumably be taken to ensure that the exit polls fiasco never happens again and there may even be a ban on them in future elections.
What happens the electoral college is a different matter. Even before this election there were frequent calls to abolish the electoral college and allow presidents to be elected directly by popular vote.
This would avoid the danger that the vote of the people could be nullified by the state-by-state count of the college. This happened in the 1888 election but presidents then were nothing like as high-profile as today.
A change now would mean a constitutional amendment which is a cumbersome business involving Congress and all the states and it could backfire.
When the Florida recount is ended later today it may well be that the popular vote winner and the electoral college winner will be the same person. That would be a relief.
The last thing the country needs after the trauma of this election is a constitutional crisis. With a Congress virtually tied between Republicans and Democrats, the idea of a president without a popular mandate could be a recipe for political instability. No president in that situation would be comfortable in taking hard decisions involving, say, military action abroad.
The next president, in any case, is certain to have problems with a Congress balanced on the thinnest of margins between the two parties. Republicans seem to have kept control of the House of Representatives and the Senate but there will be little scope for either Mr Bush or Mr Gore pushing through the ambitious reforms in social security, health insurance and education which figure largely in their policy documents. Mr Bush's huge tax cut may also wither on the vine as the notional budget surplus of trillions of dollars over the next decade is mainly spent by a jealous Congress.
Appointments by the next president to the Supreme Court and to federal posts, including ambassadorships, will be scrutinised even more sharply than before and may lead to ill-will on both sides.
The election also reveals a country of sharp divisions, with support for the Democrats and Republicans splitting geographically, racially and ethnically, between the genders and between city and countryside.
The electoral map is a striking graphic of how the Democratic majority is concentrated on opposite coasts and around the Great Lakes while the Republicans occupy vast tracts in the centre, the Rocky Mountains and the south.
But the country's motto is "Out of Many, One". Elections down the years are putting this federal ideal under increasing strain, but so far good sense and loyalty to their country have ensured that Americans can take the anomalies of the oldest constitution in the world in their stride.
Their patience with the politicians who run the system should not be taken for granted.