States still have vastly different systems for calling recounts and for carrying them out. Counting standards are inconsistent, state to state, and obscure provisions, like one in Michigan that deems some precincts not “recountable,” threaten to raise more public doubt about elections than confidence. Some of the most basic questions — is it better to count by hand, or with a machine? — have not been settled.

And the process is endlessly mired in political and legal maneuvering; some days this week, the legal fight was playing out in the three states, seemingly simultaneously, in nearly every level of state and federal courts, while partisan leaders held dueling news conferences.

“This is a learning opportunity for the nation, to watch what’s going on now, and to realize how chaotic and confusing the process can be,’’ said Edward B. Foley, the director of the Election Law Project at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. “That would not be desirable in a situation where it would make a difference.”…

A group of lawyers with the American Law Institute, an independent research organization, discussed model legislation on Friday to help states clarify recount procedures.

E. Mark Braden, a member of that group and a former chief counsel of the Republican National Committee, said state procedures often made it difficult to resolve disputes and certify results in the short period between the election and the meeting of the Electoral College.

This year’s legal gymnastics show how difficult it is to resolve disputes under a tight deadline. “This circus atmosphere,” Mr. Braden said, “is very familiar to those of us who have done statewide recounts.”