The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER:

Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour this election night: What the candidates said and did today; what the heavy turnout may mean; the view from the campaign headquarters; the day's voting problems; an electoral college lesson; Mark Shields and David Brooks; and the non- election news of the day.

JIM LEHRER: This was Election Day in America for one of the most combative presidential races of modern times. Voter turnout fit the occasion. It was extremely heavy -- at record levels in some parts of the country. Supporters of President Bush and Sen. Kerry mounted major efforts to get their voters to the polls. The president voted this morning in Crawford, Texas, near his ranch. Then, he headed back to Washington, making a stop in Ohio along the way. Sen. Kerry started the day in Wisconsin, and arrived back in Boston later, where he voted this afternoon. Both men voiced optimism about the outcome. We'll have more on what the candidates said and did today in a moment. Control of the U.S. Senate was also at stake today, with 34 seats up for decision. All 435 seats in the House were on the ballot as well. So were 11 governorships. Voters in a number of states also decided ballot initiatives on gay marriage and other issues. There were scattered problems with voting today. Thousands of lawyers monitored complaints, and looked for signs of voter intimidation or fraud. In Ohio, a federal appeals court agreed early today to let party officials challenge voters' eligibility inside polling places. Our Spencer Michels spent the day in Ohio. Here's his report.

SPENCER MICHELS: Following today's ruling, voters turned out in droves this morning at polling places throughout Ohio. Two federal judges originally banned partisan challengers from polling places after Democrats had argued that they would intimidate mostly minority voters. The Republicans decided to appeal, and last night, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to let the challengers go back into the polling places. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene. In a number of heavily African American precincts in Cleveland where Democrats fear voters would be challenged and therefore stay away, few attorneys from either party showed up. Democrats are counting on a large vote in the Cleveland area to offset strong Republican areas elsewhere. There were very few confirmed reports in Cleveland this morning of problems other than long lines and not enough polling stations. Some Democrats attributed the lack of challengers to the large number of volunteers mobilized from around the country to observe the vote and ensure that people got to the polls. Ebony Malone was one of 35,000 voters challenged a week ago by Republicans because she had registered more than once. She was accompanied by a Washington attorney for a voters rights group.

EBONY MALONE: I felt outraged, you know, I was very upset, because, you know, it was allowed to happen right underneath my nose.

EDWARD HAILES, JR.: When you, in a racially discriminatory manner, target young African American voters in particular, that is against the law, so it was clearly a racially discriminatory pattern.

SPENCER MICHELS: At Cuyahoga County Republican headquarters in Cleveland, spokesman Jeff Flint denied any racial discrimination was involved.

JEFF FLINT: What you've seen this year in Ohio is a massive amount of voter registration fraud, um, whether or not there is ever an intent to turn that into ballot fraud, you don't know until Election Day. And that's why we wanted to have observers. And it happens that that fraud was disproportionately in some of the more heavily Democrat voting precincts.

SPENCER MICHELS: The widespread attention Ohio is getting reflects a very closely split electorate with a prize of 20 electoral votes.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on voting problems and legal struggles, later in the program. In non-election news of the day, car bombs killed at least a dozen people in Iraq. In Baghdad, a suicide attacker plowed into barriers outside the ministry of education, killing eight people and wounding up to 29 others. Four more Iraqis were killed in Mosul, when a car bomb exploded near a military convoy. In the West, U.S. warplanes attacked targets in Fallujah again overnight. The U.S. military said the raids destroyed a weapons site. Army troops and police in Sudan surrounded several refugee camps in Darfur. U.N. relief officials reported the move. They said almost 90 relief workers were forced out of the camps. Sudan denied the allegations. Ethnic fighting in Darfur has killed more than 70,000 people in the last year-and-a-half. More than 1.5 million others have been displaced. Aides to Palestinian leader Arafat announced today his health has improved a bit. Arafat arrived at a military hospital in France last Friday. The aides said he's regained enough strength to undergo a new round of tests. There's been no definite word on the nature of his illness. A final diagnosis is expected later this week. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today on separating prison inmates by race as a safety measure. California state prisons routinely separate prisoners by race for 60 days when they arrive in a new prison. State officials said today it decreases violence. Lawyers for a black inmate argued the policy is unconstitutional, based on previous Supreme Court rulings. Oil prices closed below $50 a barrel today for the first time in more than a month. In New York trading, futures fell 53 cents, to settle at $49.60 a barrel. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 18 points to close below 10,036. The NASDAQ rose nearly five points to close above 1,984. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: The candidates' day; reading the turnout; the view from headquarters; voting problems; what exactly is the electoral college; and Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - DECISION DAY

JIM LEHRER: This day in the life of President Bush and Sen. Kerry. Kwame Holman reports. (Cheers and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: The final day of the presidential campaign began early this morning for both of the major candidates. Sen. Kerry started it with a rally in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: It's that magic moment when the greatest democracy on the face of the planet gets to show the world how we work. And look at you, all of you out there. Out there in the morning, back here today, ready to go. Going to get your neighbors out there to vote. And together, we're going to change the direction of this country. We're going to put common sense and truth back into the decisions of this nation.

KWAME HOLMAN: The president, Mrs. Bush, and their daughters started the day as the polls opened in Crawford, Texas. After he voted, Mr. Bush spoke to reporters.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This election is in the hands of the people, and I feel very comfortable about that. People know where I stand. I've enjoyed this campaign. It's been a fantastic experience, traveling our country, talking about what I believe and where I'm going to lead this country for four more years. And you know, there's just something refreshing about giving it your all, and then saying, "the people will make the right decision." And I believe I'm going to win.

KWAME HOLMAN: The president also talked about his opponent.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I wish him all the best. And he's... you know, he and I are in the exact same position. We've given it our all. And I'm sure he's happy, like I am, that the campaign has come to a conclusion. All I can tell you is I know that I've put my full amount of energy into this campaign, and I've enjoyed it, and I'm enthused and have been uplifted by the spirit of our supporters and by the prayers of our supporters.

WOMAN: We have worked so hard for you guys. Thanks so much.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, the vice presidential candidates also spent part of the final day campaigning. John Edwards shook hands with some of those waiting in long lines at a polling station in Tampa, Florida. And vice president and Mrs. Cheney voted in Wilson, Wyoming, before heading for a rally in Wisconsin, then on to Washington, D.C. By midday, President Bush was making one last campaign pitch in Columbus, Ohio.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I am going to run this race out to its fullest. I will be able to... both of us will be able to say that we campaigned as hard as we possibly could. I have made the differences as clear as possible about why I think I am the best leader for the country for the next four years. And you know, we'll find out tonight what the American people think, and I'm looking forward to it.

KWAME HOLMAN: And by this afternoon, Sen. Kerry had traveled to Boston to cast his ballot. He stopped to talk to reporters afterward.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: The American people have opened their homes, their hearts to us, all of us. They brought us in, shared their struggles. And now the campaign comes to an end, and the American people are going to decide. I'm very confident that we've made the case for change, the case for trust in new leadership, a new direction, a fresh start. But what's really important is that both the president and I love this country. It's really important that people go out and vote and express their love for our country. No matter who they vote for, we want people to participate. And finally, let me just say that whatever the outcome tonight, I know one thing that is already an outcome. Our country will be stronger, our country will be united, and we will move forward no matter what, because that's who we are as Americans and that's what we need to do.

KWAME HOLMAN: The senator was asked what he'll do if he wins.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: I'm not going into anything beyond working till 8:00 tonight. I'm still asking Americans for their votes. I never leave any stone unturned. People who know me know I focus. This is the strong close and that's what I'm doing.

KWAME HOLMAN: Sen. Kerry had his traditional Election-Day lunch at Boston's Union Oyster House, America's oldest restaurant. Tonight, the Kerry campaign will be headquartered at Boston's Copley Square. Sen. Kerry will watch returns privately with his family, before joining John Edwards at a rally later tonight. President Bush arrived in Washington this afternoon. He and his family will watch the vote tally from the White House before joining supporters at the Ronald Reagan federal building downtown.

JIM LEHRER: A major story of the day thus far has been the heavy voter turnout. Gwen Ifill explores the possible meanings of that.

GWEN IFILL: Record numbers of voters were expected to turn out today across the country; 105 million people cast ballots four years ago. Predictions this year call for ten million to twenty million more this time around. But will big turnout equal big impact? To discuss that and other Election Day matters, we turn to Tony Fabrizio, partner at Fabrizio McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling firm in Virginia; and Ethel Klein, president of EDK Associates, a Democratic polling firm in New York. Let's talk about this turnout, Tony Fabrizio. If it's true, as they say, that this would be the biggest turnout in a presidential election since 1968, who does that help?

TONY FABRIZIO: Well, I think it depends on what the turnout number is, Gwen. I think if the turnout number is north of 1 a million people, I think that gives the edge to Sen. Kerry. If it's within the 110 to 115 range, I think it's still very competitive. I've heard some estimates go as high as 120 million people voting in this election. That would be not only historic but it would be mind-boggling in terms of the impact that it could have in a number of these states. I think that this time around the Republicans have put a considerable effort into turnout operations, into identifying voters. We recently did a study in the 12 battleground states and found almost one in every five households said they had been visited by either the Bush or Kerry campaign. That's a huge amount of doors to be knocked on. So I think that story is yet to be written as to what the turnout is going to mean and where it falls and who it helps.

GWEN IFILL: Ethel Klein, who benefits, do you think?

ETHEL KLEIN: I think the American people benefit. This is an exciting day for democracy. We have just seen the reversal of a 30-year trend of declining voter registration and participation. And the fact that people are showing up and standing up and being counted and saying "I believe in the system" is wonderful for all of us, whoever wins. I think we need to look at why this is working, and I think thank God there's no widespread malicious action. I mean, there are problems, but those problems are really due to systemic failures. And I want to reinforce something that Tony said. This election has brought out huge numbers of people in addition to door knocking and volunteering, putting on bumper stickers, they're talking about politics much more than they ever have.

GWEN IFILL: But is this happening because people are knocking on these doors and bringing people to the polls or is it because the issues the, the candidates are making people get up out of their couches?

TONY FABRIZIO: You know, it's the issues and it's the candidates. What the candidates represent. The candidates are symbolic of issues in this country. I think one of the overlooked things is that for years, you know, the media has talked about how negative campaigns and how campaigns that focus on the differences and not the positives, how they drive down turnout et cetera, et cetera. Well, I have to tell you, I can't think of a presidential campaign that has been more sharply defined than this one in recent history and this may be the presidential campaign that draws the highest turnout by percentage. So I think sharp differences here serve both men and may, in fact, have served democracy because it motivated people who ordinarily wouldn't have voted to the polls. And, like Ethel says, I echo what she says, that's great for the country.

GWEN IFILL: Now of course the polls haven't closed in large swaths of the country yet, but does it make a difference who shows up in these extraordinary new numbers?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: Well, it's going to make a difference to the Kerry campaign if those are young people, if those are union members, if those are people making under $50,000 a year. That's his constituency. And it's going to make a difference in politics in the future if young people are turning out in the numbers that they said they would.

GWEN IFILL: Who does the turnout have to be to help the Bush campaign?

TONY FABRIZIO: I think the turnout for the Bush campaign has to be homeowners, middle-class families, people with children, younger children, religious conservatives. I think that there are a number of voters... if you look at just drive down any street in most places, you can see what type of neighborhood you're in. You're either in a Kerry neighborhood or you're in a Bush neighborhood and I think people... you see people actually going to the headquarters to get lawn signs to put on their yards. That's amazing.

GWEN IFILL: And then complaining when they're stolen.

TONY FABRIZIO: Exactly, exactly. Exactly.

GWEN IFILL: We have seen much talk about whether this was an election which was a referendum on the incumbent or not and all of the president's approval numbers as they've stayed a little bit under 50 percent, at least for the last couple weeks. What is the significance of that? Is this, in fact, as we are watching the numbers show up, is it... do we have any way of knowing whether these are people who are coming to vote for and against the president or for and against a set of issues?

ETHEL KLEIN: We know pretty much they're voting against the president if they vote for Kerry. Most of Kerry's supporters say they that's their first reason. As they've known the candidate and he's grown in his personal persona, he's become more popular. But for Kerry voters first and foremost it is a referendum against the president. Any time you have an incumbent that is this close at the end, that's all it can be. Usually incumbents if they've done a good job, they run on their record and they win.

GWEN IFILL: Do you agree with that?

TONY FABRIZIO: Yeah. You know, one of the things I've said is the leading barometer or indicator of how the president will do is where his job approval rating is. It's very difficult for an incumbent to run much ahead of what his job approval number is. And as you pointed out, the president's job approval has stayed right in that 49 range. That's nationally. That's not in the battleground states. So it will be interesting to see how it plays out. But as Ethel said, you can't find two people that have polarized their bases more than these two men have. You know, John Kerry is reviled by the Republican base, and President Bush is reviled by most of the Democrat base. So it's very polarizing.

GWEN IFILL: And in the surveys you've taken leading up to the election, have either of you identified wild cards? Last time it was the Nader factor no one took into account that we should be watching for tonight? Ethel Klein?

ETHEL KLEIN: Well, I'd be... for the other side I'd be watching for the evangelical vote. That's the vote that promised to deliver the election for the president. If f they turn out in large numbers then we'll see very interesting results.

GWEN IFILL: What do you think?

TONY FABRIZIO: I'm looking at younger voters and minority turnout. One of the things I have been concerned about for the past couple weeks is that all of the "likely voter" models are actually under representing what turnout among 18 to 29-year-olds will be and what turnout among his picks and African Americans will be and if that is, in fact, the case, they are underplaying Sen. Kerry's potential upside support.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about Ralph Nader for a minute. Does anybody think he'll be factor tonight? Any sign of that?

TONY FABRIZIO: He is the incredible shrinking candidate. He has gone from, in most states in 2000 he probably got 3 or 4 percent. I'd be amazed if he breaks a percent in many of these hotly contested battleground states.

GWEN IFILL: If that's so, why is that so?

ETHEL KLEIN: I think a lot of people who voted for aid in sore no difference between Gore and Bush. And so they were voting for a candidate that sent a message. I think many of them learned that while there was more of a difference than you thought and they don't believe that message anymore.

TONY FABRIZIO: There's one other group and that will be interesting to see how this plays out tonight. That is -- we do it our surveys - I'm sure you do it in yours, Ethel - is we look at the people who have a negative opinion of both candidates. In my last survey they were breaking to Sen. Kerry, they were not breaking to the president. So that means if you dislike both candidates, you have voted for Sen. Kerry.

GWEN IFILL: The pox on both houses vote?

TONY FABRIZIO: Right. But it was better the devil we know than the devil we do know in that case. And it's going to be very unusual because Sen. Kerry's image has actually been... he's been viewed less favorably overall than President Bush and so you're going to after the fact say "well, how could the president have lost when he has a better net image than Sen. Kerry?" Well, those voters who dislike both of them, if they break to Sen. Kerry in the end, that will be one of the factors -- small group, but very decisive.

ETHEL KLEIN: Also, that group usually when they're cross pressured they don't vote. They're telling every one of us, every pollster "we're going to vote, we don't know for whom but we're going to vote."

TONY FABRIZIO: And it's not Nader.

ETHEL KLEIN: No, it's not Nader.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. Well, we'll have a lot to talk about when we have numbers to work with. Ethel Klein and Tony Fabrizio, we'll talk to you later.

TONY FABRIZIO: Thank you.

ETHEL KLEIN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the view from the two campaigns this election night. First Ray Suarez; he is at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, election night headquarters for the Bush campaign. Ray, what have you heard from the Bush folks about this heavy turnout? How are they reading it?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, one senior Bush staffer told me it's not necessarily bad news for the president, that some of the new high numbers are coming from places that Bush won in 2000 and for instance, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania was a place that Bush carried handily and they're seeing tremendous turnout there, almost 75 percent. So they think that's good news and that helps cancel out some of the high turnout that's coming from metropolitan counties closer to big cities.

JIM LEHRER: They don't go for the conventional wisdom that we just heard, in fact, if you get above 115 million turnout up to 120 million that that really does help Kerry? The Bush folks don't see it that way?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, a shorter time ago I spoke to Bush-Cheney '04 senior advisor Terry Holt and all he would say is "I've seen competing exit polls." He wouldn't quantify it, he wouldn't discuss it and wouldn't go out on a limb.

JIM LEHRER: I got you. This is a difficult question but I'm going to ask it anyhow. You're there. So is it possible to describe the beat within the campaign at this moment as being upbeat, down beat? Is there any beat at all? Is there anything even begun yet along those lines about how folks are feeling about this?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what you normally see in headquarters like this, this early in the evening is consistent upbeat approach even if some of the news they've started to see isn't that good. But what Bush-Cheney staffers have been saying this evening are things like "the president gave it everything he had." "The president did what he had to do." And now it's up to the voters. None of that overarching happy talk until the hard numbers come in -- sort of spin for the reporters who are here early.

JIM LEHRER: Ray, was there a strategy for this Election Day that the Bush campaign followed for the president and for the vice president? Did they have a last day thing they wanted to do?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, they wanted to keep both the president and the vice president on television on Election Day, which is why even once the president voted and was seen by the public, seen by the cameras, he didn't go into seclusion, he got back on a plane and started to appear before voters again to keep himself on TV through the news cycle. Terry Holt mentioned that they kept their ads up on TV in a lot of places in the country when normally they would have sunseted them the night before. And the phone banks which a couple of election cycles ago would have ended last night continued on through the middle of today.

JIM LEHRER: And the thinking there was that the race was still so close and there was still some people out there that they could still persuade?

RAY SUAREZ: There's still a strong belief they could drive turnout well into the day. Terry Holt mentioned they kept their ads up on web sites because people look at the web when they're at work and vote in a lot of places after work. So there's still a chance to reach them with the campaign's message when in earlier cycles it would have been all over.

JIM LEHRER: Ray, is there a program... we see behind you there there's a stage, this was a very... people who haven't been there, this is a huge building, right, in the center of the federal establishment here in Washington and downtown Washington. Is there a program that's going to go on all evening and then hopefully capped by President Bush coming at a certain time? Has that been scheduled? Is there a schedule to follow?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, staffers are drifting in. People are starting to fill the place up. The band has been doing its sound checks and rehearsals and a program will start later this evening.

JIM LEHRER: Is it a sure thing that President Bush will come out no matter what happens later this evening?

RAY SUAREZ: Nobody will speculate on that. Nobody will confirm any schedule the president is watching the returns just a few blocks are from here at the White House, the Ronald Reagan Building is just across Pennsylvania Avenue, a little ways from the White House. It's certainly close enough but nobody will confirm the president's schedule.

JIM LEHRER: Ray, thanks, we'll talk to you later in the evening off and on all evening. Now, the election night place of choice for the Kerry campaign is Copley Square in Boston and Margaret Warner is there.

Margaret, hello.

MARGARET WARNER: Hi, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: You're outside. Ray gets to stay inside. You're outside.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, you know, it's supposed to be rain but it's gorgeous so far so keep your fingers crossed.

JIM LEHRER: Let's start with the last question I asked Ray about the plans for the evening. Is Sen. Kerry going to be seen tonight no matter what?

MARGARET WARNER: Yes, he is. We've been told he'll definitely be seen. That even if it looks unresolved he and Edwards will come out because they don't want to disappoint the 10,000 plus people they expect here tonight.

JIM LEHRER: So Sen. Edwards is there with Sen. Kerry right, in Boston?

MARGARET WARNER: They are all in Boston. Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards and their wives and they've been doing a lot of calls and so on to supporters and to television stations throughout the country. But they're all going to be together later.

JIM LEHRER: What was their strategy for the day? What did they want to accomplish on this last day, if anything?

MARGARET WARNER: What they really wanted to establish Jim-- and it's a clich -- but turnout, turnout, turnout. For them the magic number was 115 million, which is nine million more than last time. They knew that Karl Rove wanted to turn out more of the Christian conservative base so they felt they had to turn out up to 115 just to match him. After that, they felt it would show they were succeeding and bringing out the new voters and the young voters and a bigger out pouring of traditional Democratic voters. So they're very encouraged by the turnout anecdotes at least from today. The strategy today was once they saw the early exit poll numbers and turnout was to target Kerry's time this afternoon very specifically to speak to local TV stations in certain market which is they did.

JIM LEHRER: And did a... what states did they choose? What states did they see that they had to do something, or do you know?

MARGARET WARNER: I do know and it's very interesting. At first they said last night "boy, some states are totally gone or really good we won't use them there at all." But if you look at the states he spoke to, it was still Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Florida, big cities in those states. Pennsylvania, however, they had Edwards speak to Pennsylvania.

You know, make of that what you will. I mean, they're all mindful that in 2000... a lot of these people are veterans of the Gore campaign and they knew that the polls looked good then, too, and it didn't pan out later that night.

JIM LEHRER: On the turnout... I mean, I guess they're upbeat about the turnout?

MARGARET WARNER: Very.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. The real turnout up until now.

MARGARET WARNER: That was the keyfor them; that was the absolute key to them. One thing they're doing... another thing they're doing tonight is say in Ohio which is absolutely key to them, they're very worried that the lines will be long and people will either get discouraged and go home, so they've not only got the money to, you know, make sure they're sit shuttling people to the polls but they're going to have coffee and doughnuts and rent port a potties at certain precincts so people once they're in line, they're telling them you cannot be turned away and however long it takes, it may be after 7:30, they can still vote.

JIM LEHRER: This is serious business, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Very serious. You know, Jim, the interesting thing is because a lot of these are Gore veterans, what they say is they've got the money to do what Gore could never do in 2000 which is throw resources at states based on even their indications they're getting today.

JIM LEHRER: Is there... would you... I take it, then, that you would describe the feeling there in that... there at Copley Square tonight as being upbeat?

MARGARET WARNER: Well, among the Kerry supporters... I mean the insiders, yes -- but cautiously so -- cautiously so. I mean, you know, there is nothing... I mean, there's no assurance of anything. And they know how... you know, turnout, maybe they turned out their people this morning and they got there at 6:00 A.M. and it will be light tonight. They don't know.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret, don't go away. We'll be talking to you off and on later this evening as we will Ray from Washington. Thank you very much.

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks, Jim.

FOCUS - POLLING PROBLEMS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Voting problems; an electoral college short course; and Shields and Brooks.

Terence Smith has the problems.

TERENCE SMITH: So far, there have not been reports of widespread voting irregularities, but there have been some voting problems across the country. They include long lines, voting machine failures, voters finding they are not on registration lists, and a shortage of provisional ballots. For more, we're joined now by two people who have been tracking potential voting problems across the country today. Doug Chapin is director of electionline.org, a nonpartisan web site that provides news and analysis on election reform issues; and by Becca O'Brien is cofounder and national director of Just Democracy, a nonpartisan network of law school chapters working on election reform issues nationwide. Welcome to you both.

Doug Chapin, there was great anticipation of voting problems across the country. Have they materialized generally?

DOUG CHAPIN: They have to a certain extent but in watching the news today, we find that election problems are really no bigs but lots of littles. We've had some voting machine breakdowns in New York City, one precinct in suburban Richmond that for ten minutes was voting in the wrong congressional district, some glitches here and there. But nothing along the lines that we expected or were looking for in the wake of the Florida problem in 2000.

TERENCE SMITH: No Florida redux? At least not so far?

DOUG CHAPIN: At least not so far.

TERENCE SMITH: Becca O'Brien, you have people reporting to you from 28 states and the District of Columbia. What are you hearing?

BECCA O'BRIEN: Well, I've gotten to speak with a number of those law students today across the country and what I'm hearing is pretty much exactly consistent with what Doug just said. There are some small problems as we expected that there would be. There are the type of problems that, for the most part, we expected that there would be. There are some isolated areas of... that are troubling, Little Rock, Arkansas, seems to have experienced some issues today. It's a little hard to get a clear report on what exactly happened, but it might have been a big deal. But the kinds of Floridas that we were looking for in Florida and Ohio don't yet seem to have materialized.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Doug Chapin, in Ohio there were, you know, sort of dueling court case there is and tell us what happened when the three-judge panel finally ruled this morning. Spencer Michels referred to it in his piece earlier.

DOUG CHAPIN: Certainly. Literally in the wee hours of Tuesday morning a federal appeals court cleared the way for partisan challengers inside the polls in Ohio. Interestingly enough, though, when observers and others got to the polls this morning, those challenges never materialized. To a certain extent they seemed to have decided to sit this one out -- maybe because an appeals court in New Jersey had said they could not use a list of challenged voters. Now, late in the day another appeals court has overturned that ruling and that list is back in play and we'll be watching to see if that had any effect on the vote in Ohio.

TERENCE SMITH: Becca O'Brien, there was also confusion, I believe, in Ohio and perhaps elsewhere on the whole issue of provisional ballots. How they are issued, how they are voted, and what do you know about them? Did it, in fact, cause some problems?

BECCA O'BRIEN: Well, provisional ballots seemed to have caused some problems in many places. Ohio in particular we heard some anecdotes about from law students who are on the ground in Columbus, Ohio. It seems that when the provisional ballots-- which is a new measure required to be provided by the states by a federal law that was passed a couple of years ago -- provisional ballots allow a voter who shows up in a precinct and believes that he or she is registered and ought to be able to vote but whose name does not appear on the rolls to cast a ballot that will be held separately and then counted later once that voter's eligibility has been verified. There's some confusion, it seems, among voters. There's a lot of confusion -- but even among poll workers as to where those provisional ballots can be cast in order to be counted. Many people in Ohio, it seems, were under the impression -- which does seem intuitive when one just hears about the idea of a provisional ballot, that they would be able to cast that ballot anywhere and that it would be counted as long as they were registered somewhere in Ohio. But it turns out the law is that you actually is to cast the ballot in your correct precinct. And this became particularly complicated in places where there were multiple precincts operating, for example, in the same space, maybe in a gymnasium or some other large space, so that the difference between casting a ballot in one... in your correct precinct versus an incorrect precinct might literally just mean that you had waited in the wrong line on the wrong side of the room.

TERENCE SMITH: And do you have any idea, Becca, how widespread that has been today - to this point?

BECCA O'BRIEN: Well, it's very hard to say. One thing that is somewhat comforting is that ideally provisional ballots should be being used in the minority of cases. They really should only apply and therefore their problems should only be raised in the context of people who are not in the right place. So we hope that most people have showed up in the right place and their names are on the rolls to begin with. But it's pretty safe to say that in most precincts across the country some provisional ballots have been issued and some fraction of those, you know, have been cast in the wrong places and won't actually end up being counted.

TERENCE SMITH: Doug Chapin, some public interest groups -- one the Election Protection Coalition has said that as many as a hundred thousand voters may not have their absentee ballots counted because they didn't receive them in time or had other problems. Have you heard that?

DOUG CHAPIN: We've heard similar numbers. And as most election officials around the country would tell you, that's 100,000 ballots too many. It's important, though, to keep in mind that in a nation where at least one party is aiming for a turnout of 115 million, while a hundred thousand is a big number by itself, it pales in comparison to the overall picture. So while election officials want to work to make sure that everyone who's eligible to get a ballot does so, it's important to remember that it might not have as big an impact on the overall picture of the conduct of the 2004 election.

TERENCE SMITH: Doug Chapin, it's important to point out, isn't it, that many polls are still open as we're speaking and I guess it takes you a while, does it not, to get the full picture of this sort of thing?

DOUG CHAPIN: It does, indeed -- election day really is a process. We talk about it being a snapshot but it's almost a time-release photo. It takes time to develop. We need to know how things are going in different states. Sometimes the morning vote is very different from the afternoon vote. Circumstances can change. It's easy to be overtaken by events. But we get a pretty good picture at least so far, that the problems we were expecting today have yet to materialize.

TERENCE SMITH: Becca O'Brien, let me ask you about the subject of voter intimidation. There have been numerous stories of flyers distributed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and South Carolina in minority areas generally telling people that if they have had any problems with the law that they mustn't vote and that they could even lose their children, one flyer says in Milwaukee if they did so. You have examples of that and is there any idea who distributed these things?

BECCA O'BRIEN: Well, among the law students who are out in the field on the ground who I've spoken to today, there has been very little... very few anecdotes of intimidation of this sort that you are describing. There were some stories from the city of Philadelphia about a van that had been... was circulating perhaps with a bullhorn making announcements that were somewhat along the lines of what you just described but certainly those are incredibly disturbing incidences. It's important to remember that these kinds of things have been going on for many years. They aren't new this year. They weren't new in 2000. And even if it occurs in a small number of places, it's deeply disturbing and ultimately very discouraging to voters who experience... potential voters who experience that kind of intimidation. But the good news perhaps is that the country's attention is being focused so much more clearly on these issues now and I do hope that if they haven't been cleared up by this election which it certainly seems that they haven't, that they will get the attention they deserve before the next time we vote.

TERENCE SMITH: Becca O'Brien and Doug Chapin, thank you both very much.

FOCUS - ELECTORAL COLLEGE

JIM LEHRER: Much will be said through the night by us and others about electoral votes, the number needed to be elected, and so on. Jeffrey Brown has a short-course on the "and so ons."

JEFFREY BROWN: The magic number is 270, but 270 whats? The system of choosing the president is as old as the country itself, and yet remains somewhat mysterious and controversial for many Americans. Here for an electoral college primer is John Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of "After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College." Welcome, John. To start very simply, tell us how is the number of electoral votes for each state determined?

JOHN FORTIER: Each state has the number of electors that they have representatives in Congress. Two senators plus the number of representatives they have in the House of Representatives. Wyoming, our smallest state, two senators and one rep, three electoral votes; California, our largest state, has 55. That's two senators and 53 reps. Do you add them together then you have three more from the District of Columbia who participates in the presidential election.

JEFFREY BROWN: So much of it depends on population, clearly. But for some small states or thinly populated states, they get slightly more representation.

JOHN FORTIER: It's roughly based on population but there's an overrepresentation of small states, yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, total number of electoral votes 538. And thus this magic number?

JOHN FORTIER: 270, the majority you need to be elected president of the United States.

JEFFREY BROWN: What's the theory behind it? I said this has been around since the country began. What was the idea of the founders?

JOHN FORTIER: Well, in one way that was compromise that we saw in other parts of our government between small states who wanted equal representation and large states who wanted representation by population. We see that in the Senate and the House and the Electoral College. The other thought was that we would be able to elect someone with a national presence. One electoral vote might be cast for a local member but the second one would be cast for a George Washington or someone who could cut across state bounds. And today we see that. You have to win states around the country, not just in one region to become president.

JEFFREY BROWN: In most states, it is a winner take all. Whoever gets the majority of votes gets all of the electoral votes -- but not in two states and maybe not in a third after tonight. Tell us about that.

JOHN FORTIER: Right. States have a lot of leeway how they appoint electors, but 48 of them have a winner take all system. You win by one vote in California and you get all the electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska have district systems where you might win some by winning the state but others by winning in the congressional districts. They have never split their votes but it's possible and finally the controversial Colorado initiative which is to switch to a proportional system. Colorado has nine electoral votes. Currently you would have a 9-0 split in the winner take all system but they have an initiative on the ballot, on the same ballot as the presidential election to change it to proportional where you might have a 5-4 split where the winner, Bush, maybe, likely gets 5 and the Kerry would get four.

JEFFREY BROWN: I read, tell me if I'm right, if that had been in place in 2000 than al Gore would have been president.

JOHN FORTIER: Absolutely. Bush won 271 electoral votes last time, just barely over the majority hump and Al Gore might have been the president if that system had been in place.

JEFFREY BROWN: Has there before been a case where the state's electoral votes were split?

JOHN FORTIER: Yes, early on we had a number of states doing that. We had states appointing it directly with our state legislatures. We have a variety of methods. But we moved pretty quickly to a winner take all popular vote system in almost all the states.

JEFFREY BROWN: Okay. Now, when each of us votes, we're actually voting for electors, even if we think we're voting for George Bush or John Kerry, correct?

JOHN FORTIER: Right.

JEFFREY BROWN: Who are these people and who do they do?

JOHN FORTIER: There's a slate of electors for Bush and Kerry for each state. They're typically party loyalists picked by the party convention or committee. Not very well known. Occasionally they appear on the ballot in some states. Ultimately those slats are appointed based on who win wins the popular vote in the state. In December they cast their votes and if you get to 270 when Congress counts them in January, off new president Jan. 20.

JEFFREY BROWN: Are they bound by their vote?

JOHN FORTIER: They're pledged and some states try to bind them by law.

JEFFREY BROWN: I ask this because, of course, there's one -- we both were talking about. There's one West Virginian who said he will not vote for the president.

JOHN FORTIER: He might not. He hasn't made up his mind. But they're bound. In some states there are penalties but they're modest penalties, a thousand dollars. So eight times over the last 60 years or so we've had an individual cast a vote in a way that he or she was not supposed to. It's never affected an election but you can imagine if we were sitting at 269,-269 and this Bush elector in West Virginia strayed, it would cause quite a commotion.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, that's where I wanted to go next because half of 538 is 269. There are some scenarios where there is a potential tie. What happens in a tie?

JOHN FORTIER: In a tie, no one has an absolute majority so it goes to the Congress to decide. The House of Representatives picks the president, it picks it by state delegations. You need 26 state delegations, usually of the same party, and the Senate picks the vice president. In theory, if the Democrats were to take the Senate, you might end up with a Bush-Edwards presidency.

JEFFREY BROWN: That would be interesting, John Fortier, thank you very much.

JOHN FORTIER: Thank you.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks-- syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Let's just start right there, Mark. Do you think... what do you think the possibilities are of a Bush-Edwards administration?

MARK SHIELDS: Probably slightly stronger than that of a Cheney-Kerry administration. But I don't think it's going to happen tonight. But, I mean, it's a risk with the Electoral College, it really is.

JIM LEHRER: One of the reasons we wanted to explain that tonight is that based on what happened four years ago, you never know. The Electoral College came out of nowhere and nobody knew and this and that.

MARK SHIELDS: It's a good point, Jim. To show you the commitment the Americans have to it, we have not recommended either Iraq or Afghanistan or any other democracy I know that would encourage or Japan to adopt the Electoral College system. So maybe... we said "well, they did it but maybe we shouldn't export it."

JIM LEHRER: How do you read, David, the big turnout so far? Looks like it's going to be huge. We don't have a final figure, obviously. Much what does it mean to you?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, conventional wisdom is that it's good for Kerry. Who am I to disagree with that? It gets young people, college educated people, or college students out to the polls, probably. Maybe people earning under $15,000; I've been on several college campuses over the past several weeks and there's the thing going on there. There's a lot of people wants to get involved, wanting to vote. I think it signifies what's happened to this campaign. This campaign feels different than the others because of the intense activism, because of the Internet. You have people checking online every few seconds to see if the polls have been updated, going to blogs they agree with or disagree. You have massive amounts of money to get people to turn out the vote, massive degrees of donations and activism. So the campaign is much more all around us, especially you're in a swing state. And I think that's contributed to this tremendous upsurge of interest and support and turnout.

JIM LEHRER: Generally speaking, Mark, you think this intensity, this increase intensity in this election has been a good thing or bad thing?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it's good, Jim. It's good up until the polls close tonight. Tomorrow morning the country will wake up and feel that they're living in a different America from the America they went to bed with. Maybe 100 percent will. This is an election... Peter Hart and Bill McInturf, the pollsters for the "Wall Street Journal"/NBC News asked a wonderful question in his last survey. They said irrespective of who wins - I'm paraphrase -- on next Tuesday, America has a chance of having a good president. Do you agree with that statement disagree, strongly agree, strongly disagree. Five times as many people strongly disagree that statement as agree with it. I mean, that's quite unlike...

JIM LEHRER: What does that mean?

MARK SHIELDS: What it means is that people are convinced...

JIM LEHRER: The other guy is....

MARK SHIELDS: The other guy is really a bad guy. And this is really a problem. It's not going to go away when the polls close or the balloons and bunting comes down tonight. Regardless of how gracious the winner is, how supportive the loser is. I mean, it's just... it's there and those divisions are deep and they're bitter. And they're real in this country.

JIM LEHRER: Do you read it that way?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I guess I do. I think the reasons we're polarized are deep and structural, some are paradoxical. The more educated an electorate is, the more polarized it is. Highly educated voters tend to be less flexible and people are segmented by geography, media viewing habits. So there are deep structural reasons. We are a polarized country and I think we'll remain that way. Nonetheless, I think a lot of people will say... there will be a mood shift. A lot of people are exhausted with the atmosphere that we've seen for the past year. There will be a hunger to move into some new atmosphere. The effect of the concession speech, assuming it's gracious and the victory speech assuming it's an outreach speech will be significant. I think people... you know, you go to the polls like I did today people are in a good mood. They love voting, they love what we've got here, they love the ritual of it and I think right after that they want to have some hope whoever wins, whether their guy loses. We aren't going to enter nirvana, but I think this moment it's an important psychological moment for the country and it will feel a little better.

MARK SHIELDS: Let me play not total Cassandra to David's Pollyanna but I do think irrespective of where you stand on this race ideologically in this country, you really hope as an American whoever wins gets a majority of the vote. We haven't had a majority winner someone with 50 percent plus really since 1988 when the first election of George Bush. And it gave the opposition to Bill Clinton an out. He isn't my president because he never was legitimate.

JIM LEHRER: Never had a majority.

MARK SHIELDS: And I think that's awfully important. I think move... I mean, if for example John Kerry is elected. You know, I think it's very important that he reach out to Republicans and, you know, do things like re-importation of drugs from Canada.

JIM LEHRER: Is he likely to do that? Is he likely to reach out?

MARK SHIELDS: I think he understands. I think he understands. And to go through this election, if he does win, just how divided the country is. And that, you know, in all likelihood there's going to be at least one of the two Houses that will be Republican, maybe both, and if he's going to get anything done he's got a window of six months from January to June and if he does the 9/11 Commission and maybe does some things like... probably the highway bill. But there are things that have strong Republican support which for reasons that... in this administration and this Congress its relationship, weren't done.

JIM LEHRER: David, same question for President Bush. If President Bush is reelected the he likely to reach out or say "hey they're with me and I will continue on course?"

DAVID BROOKS: I don't know about President Bush personally but I've had conversations with senior administration officials who are thinking "if we win, what do we do to break the atmosphere?"

JIM LEHRER: They're concerned about it?

DAVID BROOKS: They're saying "what can we do?" Maybe tax reform, a bipartisan commission. Maybe we can appoint people here and there. They're looking around because they know they have the same problem. It's a closely divided House and Senate and it's just become hard to get anything done, whatever you believe in. So both parties have the best intentions, now, to switch over to the Cassandra side, there's just deep institutional things going on in Washington. There's activists group, there are members of Congress who are on one side or the other. There are strong pressures towards this polarization. It's not a freak that we're like this. There are strong pressure which is everybody in their best... the angel on the right side of their shoulder wants to get out of but the devil is over there, too.

JIM LEHRER: Look at the campaign just the campaign, a presidential campaign, lasted for a year now and it's now over, whatever... not exactly a year but roughly a year. Did it... was it a good campaign? Did it reflect the real differences in the country or did it create the differences?

MARK SHIELDS: No, no. It was a good campaign in several respects. I mean, that was lot more substantive than most campaigns are.

JIM LEHRER: In what way?

MARK SHIELDS: There were real differences spelled out between these men, whether it's America's role in the world, the war in Iraq, what the national security of this country... what price we've paid for it and what won't What the federal role should be and items like health care and... I mean, big questions. I mean, as I said, this wasn't about drunk driving or did you inhale? But I think probably the substance, Jim, if we look back on it, was in 270 minutes. Those are the three debates. I mean, there was an awful lot of the campaign... I'm more critical of the president's campaign than David is, but, you know, an awful lot of energy and effort was spent on the president's campaign's part in disqualifying John Kerry - I mean, the whole flip-flop thing which basically ended after the first debate.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think about the campaign?

DAVID BROOKS: I thought it was a great campaign. I thought it was an excellent campaign. There was not an issue that was not laid out. If you wanted to know the answer... they didn't always throw it at you about Iran and North Korea but all you have to do was look on the web page, it was there. The debates were great. There was a tendency to disport the opponent but I don't think it was particularly dirty. If there's one flaw in the campaign, we're still not very good at talking about character. What sort of character does a president need to have? How do we measure these guys? How do we have a vocabulary to talk about what these two individuals have? We're still not that great at it. But when it comes to the issues, substantive differences, I thought it was much more serious and substantive than most recent campaigns.

JIM LEHRER: We'll continue this conversation later this evening. Thank you both.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: As we've been saying, the major development was the heavy voter turnout around the country on this Election Day after one of the most combative presidential races of modern times. And also overseas car bombs killed at least a dozen people in Iraq. We will see you later tonight for our special PBS election night coverage starting at 10:00 P.M. Eastern Time and throughout the night, an updated electoral map, the latest election headlines, and results in key Senate contests can also be found at the online NewsHour at pbs.org. For now, I'm Jim Lehrer; thank you and good night.