As this is being written, three days after Election Day, it appears that Florida's votes, and possibly the votes of other states, will still be in dispute by the time this is printed. We're just seeing the edges of what could become an ugly, lengthy, healthy process.

Let's just all keep our cool. Take a breath. Our system of Presidential elections has never worked perfectly. George Washington was unanimously picked for his two terms, and then four of the next eight elections had serious Electoral College problems. Let's understand going in that once or twice very 20 times we go through it, we're going to have an election that's seriously disputed or seemingly flawed. That's why the system has been adjusted or tinkered with so many times. New York citizens couldn't even vote for president in the first 10 elections; our state legislature picked members of the Electoral College until the 1828 Jackson-Adams rematch.

A big part of the latest troubles is the "winner take all" nature of picking the Electoral College in all but two small states. Picking delegates by Congressional District, with two at-large statewide, would be fairer and more accurate.

The Electoral College itself disenfranchises Democrats in Kansas, Republicans in Massachusetts and others in states that will rarely be contested. Without an Electoral College, every vote everywhere would count for something, the key to sparking interest and participation.

Meanwhile, the long recount process goes on. The videotapes of weeping West Palm Beach Jewish grandmothers despondent over accidentally voting for Buchanan and not Lieberman may portend a quagmire. The election seems tainted to many. Commentators are calling well-meaning voters "stupid" and busloads of students are crowding Florida streets. This one federal job is not worth tearing this country apart.

Both candidates should recognize that, before the voting dispute, the country has been calling out for an end to the national shouting match in Washington. We want it toned down. We want real representatives, real leaders, not television talking heads yelling, tearing down, impeaching.

The first one of the two candidates, Gore or Bush, to gracefully concede is going to look like the Man of the Decade. Mr. Gore ran poorly in his home region and across the entire lower half of the country, consistently running way behind other Democratic candidates. Most voters still question Mr. Bush's command of English and of facts. These gentlemen may never look better to America if they can show that they're real grownups without some neurotic need to win at all costs.

Now is the time for a "National Unity" cabinet that aims to solve problems and not to lock in total partisan control. There is ample precedent. After winning close elections, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter each appointed a member of the opposite party to key positions. During the war, one-third of Franklin Roosevelt's cabinet were Republicans.

In some other countries, Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush might become a better candidate by serving in the cabinet of the man who defeated him. That might be good for both of them as people, and good for us as a country.