QUESTIONS UNANSWERED IN TUESDAY'S ELECTION

Elections here and around the country Tuesday left in their wake a collection of signals so mixed they resemble code. Were there trends to be found? Were there anti-President Bush votes cast? Anti-government votes? Anti-incumbent votes? Anti-tax votes? The answer to all those questions is: "Yes ... but." It is not an easy post-mortem.

A year out from 1992 national elections, Tuesday's vote was supposed to provide clues to the country's mood. Finer detectives than ourselves might be required for the task. Dick Thornburgh, who resigned as attorney general to seek a Senate seat in his native Pennsylvania, lost to an incumbent, Harris Wofford, who was appointed to the post yet campaigned as a Washington outsider. Was Thornburgh's loss a sign of erosion in presidential or Republican influence? Perhaps, but little else would suggest that. In Mississippi, voters elected a Republican governor the first time this century, and GOP candidates scored significant victories in New Jersey and Virginia.

In Washington state, voters defeated a term limitation measure. Is this now viewed as an idea whose time hasn't come? Don't bet on it. Term limitation bills are in various stages of consideration in a score of states. If not for the prospect of purging House Speaker Tom Foley from his powerful post, Washington voters might have sanctioned Tuesday's bill.

Did the public vote with its pocketbooks closed? Not necessarily. In St. Louis, voters overwhelmingly approved a $1.5 billion bond issue for expansion of its airport. Closer to home, Cape Girardeau voters passed an $11.8 million bond issue to purchase the water utility, while Chaffee citizens approved bonds for waste water treatment. Residents of Cape Girardeau County, Scott City and Commerce opted to pay more money for enhanced 911 emergency service.

On the most visible money issue, however, Missouri voters indicated an emphatic dislike for a $385 million education tax measure, Proposition B. Perhaps no other defeated issue leaves itself so open to dissection. Was the decidedly negative vote a slap at the governor and "untrustworthy" lawmakers? Did it show a dissatisfaction with the outcomes of public education in Missouri? Would any tax measure of this size, aimed at any public goal, achieve a better result? Was it just a bad bill?

Questions abound. And for the 622,468 votes opposing the proposition, there are perhaps 622,468 different reasons why they were cast. Unable to read all those minds, our effort to find collective rationale in the balloting is of no more value than that of the person reading this. Some theories are:

The issue was complex. The published legal notice ran to an intimidating length, and voters, even those willing to tread their way through, may have felt that legislative mischief was tucked away in some clause.

The campaign strategy backfired. In August, Proposition B supporters said there were probably enough people in the education community to get the issue passed, and they aimed much of the campaign at mobilizing that group. It didn't work. The students coaxed to voter registration tables clearly didn't make it to the polls in large numbers. Nor is it clear these voters would have carried the issue if they had voted. Elementary and secondary educators added little exhilaration to the cause. Despite having far less money and clout to work with, opponents did a better job of getting their message heard. The relatively large turnout showed a mobilization of people Proposition B supporters would have as soon seen stay home.

Tax issues are universally easier to beat than to pass. Late momentum favored the cause of the opponents.

Picking over the corpse of Proposition B is not especially useful to the cause of good education. It bears noting, however, that the problems facing public schools and colleges in Missouri when this measure was conceived are still around the day after its defeat. Our view is that Missourians did not cast their votes against education Tuesday, but against a bill they didn't believe in. Still, the pro~blems must one day be faced.