Now that Christine Gregoire, the person with the most at stake, has urged that any hand recount of the 2.8 million ballots cast in the Washington gubernatorial race be statewide, that ought to settle the issue.

The decision is up to the state Democratic Party, though, and it may depend on how much money can be raised to pay for the effort.

It’s doubtful whether any recount is necessary, Republican Dino Rossi having won the original count by 261 votes and the computer recount by 42. But in a race this tight, the party has the option, under state law, to demand one – by hand. The party would have to bear the cost and is obliged to put down a $700,000 deposit by today if it decides to proceed.

The situation is even murkier now, however, because Gregoire and the party are talking about lawsuits to challenge previously disqualified ballots that might favor her. Such tactics threaten to throw the state into disarray by dragging the election out for additional weeks and hampering the ultimate winner’s efforts to assemble a new administration in time to deal with the legislative session that begins in a month.

If the party is determined to seek a recount, it should heed Gregoire’s counsel and do it statewide. It’s a last-gasp effort, but the law allows it. But the state deserves more consideration than being put through the confusion of a prolonged legal battle. If Gregoire demands and gets another recount and still trails, she should accept reality and forgo the litigation route.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is having trouble raising the $700,000, even though presidential candidate John Kerry’s campaign kicked in $250,000. Saving money by going for a partial recount – in counties where Gregoire had stronger support – remains an option, but the party should respect its own candidate’s wishes on the matter.

When the Legislature does convene, however, this dilemma gives the lawmakers something to consider. The presumption, embodied in current laws drafted long before computer technology was developed, is that hand counts are more accurate than machine counts as the ultimate determinant in close races. Rossi’s backers dispute that premise.

It’s a point of conjecture, however. Does anybody believe two subsequent counts of 2.8 million ballots – by hand or computer – will produce identical results? Can anyone provide conclusive evidence that if three counts produce different outcomes, the third and last is necessarily more reliable than the others?

This situation is unlikely to repeat itself. But on the chance that it might, in a gubernatorial or other state race, the Legislature should develop a cleaner system – one that reflects modern technology. For starters, it should prescribe that a recount at this late stage be statewide. Second, it should call for a reliable study to determine whether hand, computer or some other manner of recounts produces more accurate results and write that method into the law.

Arguably, making legislative corrections in the heat of a problem risks emotional rather than thoughtful action. Without the pressure brought by the present stalemate, however, there would not be motivation for any action. The time to act is soon.