NEWSPAPER EDITORIALS RELECT ON THIS ELECTION HISTORY

Winners will need our support, prayers: I'm writing this column long before the polls have closed and the outcome decided. ... But the content of today's column depends not on the outcome of the national state and local election results. The content is the same regardless.

First. Win, lose or draw, support those elected officials who face the daunting task of running a government far bigger than any business we can imagine. Once the people have spoken, the winners deserve our support. That does not mean we walk lockstep to their message or agenda. Nor does it mean we must forgo our own ideals and mold them in a fashion we oppose. It simply means we should give them our support, our prayers and our open-minded attitude.

Second. Remember that the political process is not a personal matter. It is a matter for society. For community. Abandon the notion that if a person disagrees with your politics, you must disagree with them on a personal level. How sad and childish that some wear their political leanings in such a personal manner. Grow up for goodness sake. If a candidate I support should lose, the sun will still rise in the morning and the world will not spin our of orbit. Passion is surely a part of politics. Personal grudges certainly should not be.

Third. Thank the good Lord that you awakened in a nation on Tuesday where you had the freedom to express your opinion and cast your vote freely. Remember the sacrifices made by millions who came before us that assured this freedom. And never take it lightly. We well may disagree with the results of this or any election, but we must agree that the opportunity to participate in this sacred process is far more important than the successes or failures of any candidate or party.

Fourth. Remove both the political signs and the political chips that balance so delicately on your shoulders. Judge not lest ye be judged. I wish I had thought of that. -- Michael Jensen, Standard Democrat, Sikeston

* * * * *

John Ashcroft, while senator from Missouri, told about his father showing up when he was sworn in as a new senator. His coming was a total surprise to Ashcroft. After everyone had left the room, his dad came up to him and made this comment:

"John, I have never been in a meeting where I have felt more pride and arrogance than in this room today. I want to remind you that nothing of eternal significance occurs through pride. Only in humility, when a person is humble, does God bless. I challenge you to be a senator that demonstrates humility in your new job. Glorify God and honor Christ."

John's dad flew back to Missouri that same day. The senator was called by his mom the next day to tell him his father died during the night. The word on humility was the last thought the father had shared with his son.

God giveth grace to the humble. James 4:6. -- The Rev. A.P. Bailey, in a Richmond, Va., newspaper article prior to the election

* * * * *

Defeated he stands: It can't be easy losing to a dead man. And if you looked at it up close, it's probably unconstitutional. But in conceding defeat in Missouri's tightly contested race, Republican Sen. John Ashcroft did more than acknowledge the polls. He ranked his constituents' interests above victory, an example we trust is being seriously considered by those in the vice president's camp now considering their options.

Briefly, Senator Ashcroft was challenged for his seat by two-term Gov. Mel Carnahan in a campaign delineated along clear ideological lines. A March headline in USA Today summed up the road ahead: "Senate race in Mo. may prove to be USA's ugliest." Three months later a Journal news story followed suit, suggesting that "the Missouri Senate race is a microcosm of the presidential-campaign battleground ... ground zero for the 2000 election."

Polls showed the two men neck and neck. Then, on Oct. 16, Governor Carnahan died in a plane crash. Scarcely two weeks later, Jean Carnahan, the candidate's widow, announced she would accept an appointment to the Senate were her husband to win. His name remained on the ballot. Almost overnight the race changed. Senator Ashcroft was put in the position of having to attack either a dead man or his widow, and, as our John Fund reported on Opinion Journal.com late last month, Carnahan began "polling better dead than he was alive." And when the election returns were in, Carnahan squeaked out a victory, polling 50.5 percent of the final vote.

Legal scholars point out that the U.S. Constitution specifies that "no person shall be a senator ... who shall not be an inhabitant of that state for which he has been chosen," a test the late governor clearly does not meet. But Senator Ashcroft would have none of it. Noting that "some things are more important than politics," he conceded the election, saying "the will of the people has been expressed with compassion, and that the people's voice should be respected and heard."

No doubt in time the Missouri race will go down in the Guinness Book of Political Oddities, and our guess is that it will ultimately lead to new legislation designed to prevent its like from happening again. In the meantime, we are left with the here and now and the prospect of a nasty legal dispute should those on the apparently losing ends decide to pursue legal claims. In Missouri, John Ashcroft eloquently answered the question by stepping down from the Senate even as he stepped up into the ranks of statesmen. In the debates, Vice President Gore spoke of his as a life dedicated to the highest ideals of public service. He may get his chance to prove it. -- The Wall Street Journal

* * * * *

Handle with care: An extraordinary election, still too close to call or to concede, left the country in an unaccustomed state of political uncertainty, to which both presidential campaigns need to respond with utmost care. The candidates owe it to their followers to assert their rights. But in doing so they also owe it to the country to avoid taking steps that will undercut the election's eventual legitimacy. The high-wire act is all the more difficult because the stakes are so large and because the election results may well be split. Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote, but George W. Bush, if the compulsory recount of the close vote in Florida confirms the original tally, will be the winner in the electoral college and thus the next president. -- The Washington Post

* * * * *

Divided politics in a united nation: If there is a mandate from Tuesday's vote, it is that neither party has a mandate much beyond this: It's time to get past the deep partisanship of the last several years. The new president would be smart to copy President Clinton, who made an overture to the opposition after his re-election by appointing a Republican, former Sen. William Cohen, as secretary of defense.

This isn't a call for parliament-style coalition government. The two-party system has served this nation extremely well. There will be one winner, one party controlling the White House. But that party should make an overt acknowledgment that the other party had significant or even superior support from voters.

That brings us to the Electoral College. There is a strong possibility that, for the first time in 112 years, the candidate with the most popular votes will lose the election. Although George Bush received fewer popular votes than Al Gore, Bush will carry the Electoral College (barring unanticipated shenanigans by rogue electors) if he wins Florida.

If Bush becomes president, the Electoral College will be cast as villain. Even before the balloting, the elector system was under assault from political leaders who seek a constitutional amendment to abolish it.

That would be a mistake.

The state-by-state, winner-take-all system has a healthy moderating influence on the nation's politics. It forces candidates to make their appeals across all regions of the country, rather than relying on huge voting pluralities in one or more regions, a tactic that would divide the country.

It gives minorities a greater voice in government because they are more likely to influence the outcomes in certain states. In turn, it forces major party candidates to listen to minority interests,

It encourages the two-party system by awarding all electoral votes to the majority winner in each state, rather than apportioning votes among many parties.

And it keeps campaigns from being fought only in populous urban areas, leaving the rest of the U.S. to watch on television. This system brings the battle to millions of otherwise uninvolved Americans. -- Chicago Tribune

~Gary Rust is president of Rust Communications.