in shaping some of the questions the candidates themselves are asked. i think we will see, partly because of changes in technology, the changes in media, a need for us on the commission to think through how we present these debates to the american public, because they will no longer be exclusively televised events. there will be something that is much more interactive and much some of theg technology, something i think all of us in this room know are increasingly important in democratic systems. with that observation, bill, i turn it back to you. we look forward to having your questions. bill: thank you, mike. thank you, frank. terrific first round presentations. [applause] bill: what i would like to suggest is we try to have two questions from the right and two questions from the center and two questions from the left. i would appreciate it if the questions could be questions,

not statements. and i will exercise the right of being moderator to be rude and interrupt. for frank and mike, the translation channel is channel eight. if there is delay or whatever, i will repeat the question for benefit of everyone in the audience. one housekeeping note that i failed to mention, and i simply want to highlight it to make sure there was that no one was concerned, the bacon that was served was turkey bacon. there has been no pork on the menu of the conference, and we did not want anyone to be concerned about that issue. but, i should have mentioned that earlier before breakfast was served. i apologize. i had a series of housekeeping notes, and i forgot that one. with that, people with microphones -- over here.

can we get microphones, because we are on television? if we don't have microphones -- please. my friend from uganda. right next to you. >> thank you very much. i wanted to thank the presenters. i was wondering, knowing that elections depend on the goodwill of the people, and the perception, do you think that the claim by one of the candidates that the elections were rigged, that the process was not fair, could have had -- the electoral process -- could have hurt the outcome of today's results? thank you very much. bill: second question. pass the microphone. >> thank you. i am from indonesia.

chairperson of the united development party of indonesia. i have two questions. since there are four candidates, they are from libertarian and green party, if i'm not mistaken, joining in the election, and of course, it is why thehe ballot also, 15% rule still used in -- what should i call -- on the two candidates who join the debates? i mean, people have their rights to know what the views of the other candidates, instead of concerning on the 8% or the 2% or 4% in the polls. that is my question, because people have -- have the right to know what the views of the other two candidates. secondly, what is the ethics, i mean, kind of norms that are used by the commission of the

presidential candidate to what is allowed and what is not allowed to express in the presidential debates? i think that's all. thank you. >> why don't we start off with the question. >> i'll start. bill: frank start, mike respond to the first question please. frank: let me respond to the last gentleman first. there were over 1000 people who ran for president of the united states this year, okay? 1000 who registered with the federal election commission. so we have to draw a line somewhere, and as i have said, we debate every four years, we go back, and we look at the standards that are applied. and whether or not someone will be getting an invitation. the 50% rule, which was the same rule used by league of women voters back in 1980, is the rule we decided in this election cycle to stay with.

and we still think it was the correct one, when you really look and see what occurred. now, we'll be looking at that rule again, clearly, between this time and the next presidential election. it is hard to believe there will be another one already, but actually, i think most of you are going to see the next election of 2020 will start tomorrow. some candidates will be out there who are looking down the road. and we will be hearing some speeches probably tomorrow. with regard to what they say when they're answering questions, as mike indicated, we have no idea what the questions are going to be. only the moderators know what they are going to ask. and we have no way of controlling what the answers are going to be, and we don't want to control them. we think the american people ought to see the candidate give the answer he or she wants and make a judgment on that. because as mike says, we're not electing the best debater, okay? we want to have -- through this

process, we see someone in debate mode, whether they're standing at podiums or seated at tables, we want to see different -- see them in different formats to make a determination. because one thing we know -- the american people want to like their president. they may not always vote for who they think is the smartest person. they want to like their president. i think they are a little challenged in this election as to the best way to go, but i think that is the best answer to that. mike: let me answer about the commission itself and answer your question about the ethics and standards of the commission. the commission is composed 16 people. frank and i are obviously the cochairs, but we have a range of people from all walks of life, business, academics, corporate , and people who have served in political office. now of the 16, i would -- i really only can identify the party affiliations of about half the members of the commission. from a number of

them what their political leanings are. people like father john jenkins, the president of notre dame university, or shirley tillman, the former president of princeton university, are by and large non-political actors. they are people with enormous stature in our system and obviously carry a great deal of weight, but the reputation and the quality of the members of the commission themselves is part of what gives us the legitimacy that we have in our system. now obviously, i worked for bill clinton when he was president. i know mrs. clinton very well. and way back at beginning of her campaign, i made a financial contribution to her campaign. well, the commission later talked about that and thought about that and said, you know, we should not, as an independent commission, non-partisan, not a creature of the two political parties, because we are thoroughly nonpartisan in the work that we do, maybe we should

have a rule that says for the period of our national election, we won't contribute to the parties, the candidates or, what we call here in america, the super-pacs, the political action committees that support those candidates. so we did institute that rule. i think the members of our commission thought that was an important ethical standard we should have so that nobody would question the alliance of this commission when it came to designing the debates. which is then the answer to the first question. even though there have been some commentary during this political season about the process being rigged, i think we were credited with putting together very independent, very fair opportunities for the candidate to present their views. some people judged one the win, one the leadser, that is the way

our commentary goes. we don't make the comments ourselves. our job is to design the format, present the opportunity and let candidates go with questions and answers and moderators pose the questions and take the content they think is in the best interests of the american people. bill: frank, would you like to add to that? frank: i agree with everything that mike just said. there have been charges by individuals in this campaign that the system is rigged. i will limit my remarks to the electoral process in the country. i do not believe that the electoral process, what is going on today, across this country, with americans going out 100 million, maybe casting their vote today, probably is already been 40% of the public who have already voted, i don't think that process, the voting process is rigged in any way. in some states, there may be problems with people who shouldn't be voting who vote, because they're not properly registered or -- i remember some cases years ago, dead people were voting -- but that is an aberration.

the system, i think, is a fair system, and i don't consider the electoral process to be rigged in any way. bill: okay. can we go to the center? i need two questions. >> [speaking spanish] grateful community. system andomparative our two countries. under your current model and with the accusations of rigging -- election's [indiscernible] if you do not have agency, how will you convince people of this?

because each of the states in the election -- [indiscernible] we see their head-to-head in many of the states, including -- this?n we do it itas with tight races, sounds very complicated. bill: ok, thank you.

other question here in the center? the chairman from india? >> i would like to compliment both of the speakers. michael mentioned one of the important roles of these debates is connect people with the president, know the personality of the president. you mentioned that there is moderator who frames the question. has the commission part of connecting the president directly with the voters collect their questions? number one. number two, how do you moderate that the moderator has framed the right expectations of the people of this country? thank you.

mike: let me -- let me take the first crack at the last question. we experimented a little bit, in this election, with how could american public have more impact, more say in the kinds of questions that the moderators would pose. there was a group called the open debates coalition that did a great job of actually creating an online mechanism for people to register their opinions on certain subjects and questions. and two of our moderators actually injected some of that material into the question they asked. they referenced this process that went on. now, i suspect we will see more of that kind of activity as we go forward, because i think people want to feel that they are a part of the process of really defining what the debate is about. now our moderators -- even though they have total control over what the questions are that get asked, they're very sensitive to public opinion, and they look carefully what

americans are suggesting, or what primary subjects they like to see debated. we have built into the system, because the moderators are responsive to public opinion, we have built into that some assurance that the questions that get posed will be about subjects that people care about, as they go through the electoral process. now, it is not without some shortcomings. it is personally painful to me, as someone who works a lot on issues related to hunger and poverty here in the united states, there was no question about that subject in any of the four debates. similarly, we had a -- you could argue for all of us, one of issues we have to think about carefully is the health of our planet. and global climate change. and there was not a thorough discussion of that issue during the debates. so sometimes we do not entirely get the substance in these debates that we would

necessarily want. to the other question, the first question, you know, look, we are a republic. and the design of our constitutional system gives great leeway to our individual states and how elections are conducted. we're not going to federalize our election process. we leave it up to secretaries of state to really administer and design the electoral process and it's a hodgepodge of 50 different designs, each according to the way in which that state conducts their ballots. there are different rules. there are a number of states today where individual voters could write in the name of another candidate, if they want to select one of those other candidates that didn't participate in our debates. but there are some states that don't allow write-in ballots. so we do have the mix, this blend, but i don't see us moving in the direction of a national

body that would administer our national elections. and of course, that is because as all america votes today, not just the presidency we're voting for. we have, obviously, candidates at all the different levels of government down to local, state, members of our congress, members of our u.s. senate who are being elected today. so by design, each jurisdiction has to have its own rules. frank: let me just add to that. right after the berlin wall fell, with my work with an organization called the international republican institute, which i started back in 1983, and the national endowment for democracy, i traveled all over the world, speaking to emerging democracies, and the first thing that i tell them is do not try to emulate what we do in the united states of america. every country must develop a system that is acceptable to the people, which takes into effect

the culture and mores of that society. ours has been around couple hundred years and works for us. there are rough spots here and there, but it works for us and is accepted by our people. it is not perfect but pretty close to perfect. i think we see today when you get on the buses going out to polling places, you will see almost every state there is a person who you must go up to when you want to vote. and they will ask you your name. most states require some sort of identification. but at that same table will be be a representative of the republican party and democratic party, who have right to sit there. and they're checking off. every state is a little different, as mike says. but our system works for us. it shouldn't be emulated by anyone. bill: let's go to the left for two questions. in the back. this can't be the shy side of the room. way over here.

>> bonjour. hi. thank you for taking my question. i'm from canada. as you know, we recently had federal elections, about a year ago at this time, actually, so i was wondering with all the travel you've done and election systems you observed is there anything you wanted you think you could incorporate the u.s. would improve the system you've seen abroad. anything? bill: one other question from this side, please. i'm having trouble -- hands, over here, in front. >> hello. i'm from sri lanka. you mentioned that at each table, there is a member -- a representative of the republican party and a representative of the democratic party, present. are you not making concrete the system of two parties? what about third party who has has some following in this country?

bill: mike? frank? frank: certainly, if they qualified in that state, in other words, they're on the ballot in that state, they have right to have someone there also, okay? with regard to the first question, i think if you asked americans today, what we could gain looking at other countries the way they do things, 90% would say, "please, make it shorter. please, let's not have four years of this. let's make it shorter." unfortunately, that is not going to happen. our constitution provides freedom of speech, and people are going to start speaking. as a said tomorrow will be the , start of the next campaign of 2020. mike: just to really emphasize what frank said, the ability of a political party representative to be present at the polls to observe the voting is extended to any party that is on the ballot.

i think in most states, correct, frank? so if you -- we have, for example, i vote nearby here in the state of maryland. and we have on our ballot -- frank: the people's republic of maryland, we call it in republican party. [laughter] mike: we have multiple candidates listed on the ballot, not just the four we described. we have other people who qualified for the ballot in maryland. so representatives of the green party or libertarian party would be fully entitled to have a poll watcher there. the two major political parties do this as part of their mechanism for turned out the vote, what we call get-out-the-vote, or g-o-t-v. they go on the mechanism for turnout. so someone who'd did not vote for anticipated would vote their candidate, they go on the phone and make sure that person goes to the polls.

that is part of the mechanism for turnout. back to the first question, we have, you know, not -- not a very impressive rate of voting among people who are eligible to vote in this country. i think we get in a presidential -- what,probably today frank, 67% to 70%? frank: you would hope, you would hope. will be interesting this time. mike: 55% or 6%. frank: 70% is a little high. mike: at best, mr. sweeney says. so, you know, that's a pretty stunning statistic. that, you know, almost half of those who are eligible to be participating in this democratic process today choose not to. they're entitled to choose not to. they might be turned off. they might not want to participate. but there are systems that have required voting. and there are sometimes -- part of me says i would really like for people to feel like it is part of their citizenship duty

to participate in these elections. whether we would ever legislate something like that as it is legislated in some of your countries, i just don't know. probably not, given our system and given the fierce independence that many people want to have that i feel is something we would incorporate. i also -- there are other systems -- i think this is may be true in canada -- that make it far easier to be registered to vote. it becomes almost an automatic process. there are some states here in the united states where if you apply for your driver's license, you simultaneously can register to vote. there are ways in which that has happened. but we have also had, in this country a very sad history of , discrimination against people, particularly minorities. we still have states in which the justice department supervises and monitors electoral participation because

of the history we have had, going back to jim crow laws that really prohibited participation by african-americans in particular. so, there are things that i think we could do to certainly improve our electoral process here in the united states. frank: i would actually like to see election day be made a holiday. so that people wouldn't have to worry about, how can i vote, i'm working, how can i get there, that sort of thing. suddenly come to that conclusion that would be in the best interests of the public. mike: or voting even on weekends. why do we pick second tuesday? frank: weekends you're starting to interfere with golf. [laughter] mike: or football. bill: i will ask the speakers to restrain themselves. one comment about observers, depending on the state law, you

will also have ngo or nonpartisan, such as league of women voters, or cause-oriented groups from the environment or other interests have registered observers, in addition to representatives of the political parties and candidates on the ballot. so just as in many of our countries, you can walk into a polling station, and there are more observers than there are poll workers or voters, that also happens in this country, depending on the state law and depending on the nature of the contest in that particular community. frank: can i ask something mike and i both forgot to mention in our prepared remarks? that is the commission on presidential debates, for the last 20 years, have been working with countries all over the world, many countries represented in this room, in helping train people to create the same sort of entity in your -- in those countries so that there will be presidential debates, or whatever the office might be called, before elections take place. in fact at the final debate in

las vegas, we had 50 representatives from 35 countries who have these sorts of commissions or were working in creating the commissions, who were our guests and went through a three-day process of meetings and consultation and also attended the debate. mike: and i would add that that is a very interactive process, because when we go out and assist, provide technical assistance in other countries designing and developing their own debates, we actually get back ideas on new things happening we should be aware about in design of our own debates. it is actually a two-way, interactive process. bill: i was simply second that. i know at least two groups in this audience have had meetings with the professional staff and people who have been part of that training process as part of their visit here to washington. we are now going back to the far right.

we have one question here and a question at the table behind him. so please here. french]king >> i would like to ask two questions. after 20 years of existence, on today's date, we have seen on the positive side of these debates, but what are the negative sides in these 20 years? the second question has the do with the difficulty in this debate. that ther problems commission usually faces in organizing these debates? thank you. >> things have really changed -- l, the other russian. >> yes. i would like to inform on how on thismbency works

process. when the current resident goes out to campaign, does he use air force one? when the vice president goes out to campaign, does he use personal office? because of where we come from -- i am from cameroon, i am the chairman of the elections in cameroon -- there's always this complaint about use and abuse about the electoral process. mike: ok. i'll start with that second question and work my way to the other questions. we have a very complicated formula that is used in the united states when the incumbent president campaigns for office, in which the costs are a portion on the political side versus the official business side. so there is a reimbursement that comes when president obama has been campaigning the last several days, a portion of the cost of the use of air force one

and the travel expenses for this -- his campaign trip will be apportioned to the political side and will be paid, usually by the democratic national committee, the democratic party will pick up the cost. but the president also usually does official business in the course of travel, and there are people that are required to travel with the president for protection and for assistance and for communication purposes. and those are deemed to be official expenses, and they get paid by all american taxpayers. but it is by and large a pretty time-honored system that has worked through different political parties having the white house and the presidency, and it works and is administered by our federal elections commission. and there's rarely much dispute about the way in which that happens. going back to the first questioner. i think there are some negative

sides. we, of course, stress the positive experience of having the two candidates there to engage each other side-by-side and debate the future of the country. but having been on a candidate side, having helped prepare bill clinton for his debates in 1996, sometimes, there is too much attention to the theatrical aspect of these debates, to the soundsoundbite that will good on television, and less on the substantive presentation of a program or ideas or a platform. i think we saw some of that during these debates. the number one recommendation that i am hearing from people who watch the debates is they wish the microphone for the candidate who is not the turn to speak would be turned off, so that they're not talking over each other all the time.

we had sometimes the debates themselves were a little chaotic, when hillary clinton and donald trump decided that they want to argue with each other, and it was not maybe as orderly as some people would have liked. so i think that's an area where, again, it is the candidates' debate, it is not our debate. how they behaved during the debates is something i think a lot of people in america had the other problems we have encountered in the 20 years, we rely on the places that post these debates to do an awful lot of work and to raise an awful lot of money to host these debates. so, each of the colleges or universities that we pick have to go out and do fundraising to equip the facility, to make the arrangements, to have the security necessary, to arrange transportation and prepare their facility for what is a huge global media event.

and i think that becomes difficult. sometimes some of our host sites have experienced some difficulty in doing that. that just happens to be our model. the commission of presidential debates doesn't necessarily raise all the money necessary to put on these debates. we leave it to the institutions that we selected to host the debates to do a lot of that work. but i think that is probably in the realm of what's difficult or challenging about the work we do. that would be probably high on the list. >> let me just add, actually longer than 20 years, the commission has been in existence for 29 years. next year will be our 30th anniversary, and things have changed dramatically from when we first started. as you can imagine, the campaigns and the parties were not always happy that there was a commission.

an outside group coming in in the last months of the presidential campaign and saying you will show up on this night , and you wille debate your opponent. they don't like the interference of outside organizations. beginning,very chairman kirk and i had with the candidates and the parties, will -- would have what basically where the debates over the debates. it was always a question of where it was going to be come -- when it was going to be, when where -- when it was when it was going to be, where it was going to be, and who the moderators would be. slowly we did two steps forward, one back for many, many years

into we reached 2000. we reached a point where we picked the dates. we picked the locations. we picked the format, and we picked the moderators without any consultation with the candidates or the political parties. so, we have reached a point of total independence, but there was certainly a difficult times in the early years. thank god, that's beyond us. on, let me follow up with one question i know that has been puzzling people your as -- has beenpuzzling puzzling people. more and more americans are voting earlier, and perhaps with the introduction of technology, we are going to see even more americans vote earlier either electronically or on the internet are using other devices. how do you select the debate

dates and would you select the debate dates so that the candidates can work their schedules but still have enough time to present their views to the american people and the debates have an impact on that voting decision? and then i will go to the center for the next two questions here. >> well, this cycle is very, very different for both the commission as well as the political parties. historically, the campaigns -- the parties have held at their conventions in late august, early september. because of the early voting factor, we knew that four years ago, 40% of the people that voted before election day. that number is probably right about where we are right now. the parties moved of their conventions into july, moved them forward. we also made a change. historically, our debates have been in october. we moved the first debate into september, but it's a factor that we really are wrestling

with. one of the things that early voting does provide is that challenge. it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good if you're holding the debates after most of the people voted. our function is an educational function. we are trying to help educate the american people as to who the candidates are and why, where they stand on important issues that should be taken into consideration in casting your ballot. so, it's something we're going to have to deal with i think, and mike and i and other members of the commission for years from now because i think technology is going to maybe demand that we move those debates a lot more forward. >> the final debate was on october 19. i think it is true, if i have looked at the literature on this correctly, that most early voting takes place in the two, two and half weeks before the election date. so there are some states in which you could vote earlier than that. certainly, there are some states that allow for absentee ballots to be sent prior to that. but i think most of the early voting probably occurred after our final debate. i've had some people ask me, why

was the final debate three weeks ago, three weeks before the election? because they wanted to see trump and clinton presumably debate again. but one reason for that is that we, because of early voting and also because the campaigns themselves like to build off of the debates to then present their final arguments to the voters. so we thought october 19, you know, was it reasonable time to allow the candidates then after the third debate to wrap up and make their final presentations to the voters as they saw fit. but that is something i think as frank indicated will have -- as frank indicated, we will have to examine the schedule and think about the reality of the fact that so many millions of americans now are voting earlier than the election day itself . >> a question from the center. over here. thank you. >> i'm from indonesia.

just one question. in the morning, i saw on cnn the --tice department [indiscernible] my question is what is the role of the justice department in the american election system? thank you. >> and over here. there we go. [inaudible] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [inaudible]

[inaudible] ask bill.o i did not quite catch the first question. but i think the question was, the justice department deploy is -- deploys people under federal law, civil rights law, to monitor voting patterns and activities in certain states that are covered under provisions of our civil rights act. and i think that they've done that. they have deployed people to be on hand and be available if there are allegations of voter intimidation. there are very strict rules about not intimidating people

who are exercising their franchise to vote, and that's taken very, very seriously, and there are justice department monitors and people in state law enforcement agencies who are available if there are any allegations that people are being prevented to exercise their opportunity to vote. so, that's taken very seriously, and i think the justice department has made clear that they're going to be engaged in that. on the second set of questions, i didn't quite catch the question about -- i think the question was why has it taken so long for the united states to actually seriously consider a female candidate for president? i think that's a peculiarity of the rhythm of our own political cycle, and the people who have been available to run. curiously, the fact that we might in fact elect our first

female president today has received less attention in the public discussion about this campaign than one would have imagined. i think that if mrs. clinton is elected today, there will probably be much more attention going forward on the fact we have made that kind of history today. obviously, we'll have to wait and see how that works. on the question of the disclosure of funding, we have , throughout our political system, pretty high standards of disclosure for campaign contributions record a -- records for candidates and parties. that people who contribute to the commission on presidential debates, which has relatively small budget, because as i mentioned most of the cost of the debates themselves are borne by the colleges and universities that host the debates.

but the money that would be raised is used to maintain our staff into some of the work that we do. so that is disclosed in the forms that we file with the internal revenue service of the united states of america. most of her contributions that are given are disclosed in that document. >> these will be the two last questions. our friend from australia, and the lady at the same table, please. >> thank you very much. i am from zimbabwe. my question is on issues relating to -- [inaudible] the public debates have made sure that america gets to know who the president will be. from the debates, there some

kind of "character assassination." how does the american system ensure that as the result of these there is no vote buying afterwards? [inaudible] >> good morning. i'm dennis from the australia electoral commission. my question is this. if the 2020 election campaigning begins early as you predict, the use of electronic communication as theecome the dominant means of communication to the public and particularly potential voters. speech --d that free

there is little that can be done to curb that or control it. but what regulation is there to curb an abuse of that right of free speech? if, for example, parties the -- or groups disseminated false or misleading information, which was disseminated to the voters, what can be done to prevent that at a national level? >> frank is deferring, let the press secretary answer that. two very difficult questions to begin with. they both go to the unique character of this 2016 presidential election here in the united states. it has not been as uplifting, inspirational occasion in the history of this country. it has been, frankly, one of the

meanest, and most bitter, and most toxic presidential campaigns that i remember. as bill was gracious enough to say, i've worked on campaigns going back to 1976, usually for the losing candidate by the way. >> thank god. [laughter] >> i don't know the answer to the questions that you both posed. there has been enormous personal levels of insult, character assassination is what our questioner called it. it has been among the things that has made this a dispiriting exercise for most americans. i think most americans would agree with the statement that we are happy that this campaign is coming to an end today, because it has not been a good example of what spirited debate looks like in a democracy.

i hope and pray that your countries provide the world better examples than we have provided in this election of how people need to conduct themselves in a democracy. so, the only hedge against the kinds of false statements, mistruths, bad information, today there's an article in one of our local newspapers about fake news. news reports that appeared to be real but, in fact, are entirely fabricated. the answer to that for our system is our first amendment to the constitution and a vigorous, free press. the fact that we have the media that can expose lies and falsehoods and character assassination when it occurs, and bring that to the attention of the american people, is the bulwark that we have against things that we take our

-- that would take our democracy in a bad direction. now, the relative strength and power of the media has been in decline in this country, because of all the changes in media and in technology and the way which people access content. but i think if you talk to journalists and editors and publishers and producers and executives of our media organizations, they understand the critical responsibility to -- responsibility that they have to be the watchdogs for the freedom that we have to conduct ourselves as a democracy. there will be a lot of discussion in the aftermath of this election, in the role the media has played, to try to call the candidates on statements that have been made that are not true. there will probably be a very spirited debate about what types of things should happen the next presidential election to ensure that we don't have as depressing

a campaign as the one that is ending today. >> let me end this by saying that whoever wins this election and becomes the next president of the united states, has a tremendous challenge and opportunity before him or her, whoever wins it. this country is divided as i've never seen it divided, and i've been in politics as long as it might. -- as mike. i've been through a lot of presidential campaigns and other campaigns. whoever wins this election has an obligation to try to bring this country back together again. i have tremendous confidence in the american people -- tremendous confidence. the overwhelming majority, in my view, overwhelming majority of republicans, democrats and

independents will reach out and support whoever wins this election and will try to get the job done. there will be people who will yell and scream, but they always do. i am convinced that if the next president uses this as an opportunity to reach across party lines, to stop the deadlock that has existed in the city of washington dc that has existed for so many years. to work together, for example, did with tipgan o'neill, the speaker of the house, and reaching across party lines to say this also secured a -- the social security system back in the 1980's, it gets that that it isortunity the same kind of opportunity before the next president. i have confidence of the american people will rally and

will give the president the opportunity to get something done. and i'm hopeful that will happen. thanks so much for you guys coming, and hope you have learned and enjoy your visit. >> please join me in a round of applause for two great american public servants from two great political parties who have devoted their lives to improving the quality of debate and democracy in this country. our country is built on a culture of political trust, the hard work that these two men and their colleagues have done in creating a tradition of the commission on presidential debates, has resulted in the opportunity for all americans to get to know their potential candidates for resident on a -- for president on a personal basis and make it personal -- make a personal judgment about who they wanted in their homes every day for the next four years on whatever type of media they were consuming. this contribution, and

particularly the elegant end, is really a great way for us now to transfer to the next stage of this conference and go and actually witnessed americans vote. but please join me in one last round of applause from mike mccurry and frank. [applause] morning, indiana governor mike pence, his wife karen and daughter charlotte, are at the church where the nominee and his wife first meant -- met. ine problems with checking to vote in north carolina. officials in durham county have turned to paper roll looks after problems with their computers in at least five ring six there. north carolina is considered -- five precincts there. is considered one of the major battleground states. is consideredina one of the major battleground states. a look at the of you are oc

facebook page which is -- wroc facebook page which is live streaming an event. voters are placing stickers on the grave of susan the anthony in rochester, new york. -- susan b anthony in rochester, new york. the u.s. house of representative's, the largest public -- republican majority in the house -- all seats are up for election two years in the house. in the senate, a third of all seats, every two years. 24 republicans are up for reelection and 24 democrats. we spoke earlier with a reporter about the key races to watch in the senate today which could determine if democrats and of controlling the senate. >> tell us what is at stake when it comes to the senate today. >> nothing less than the

majority at this point. the -- the republicans have a very slight majority in the senate. the senate is one of those chambers that tends to be very tight election after election. this is no exception. democrats need to pick up for seats to have the majority. or, if donald trump wins, mike pence becomes the president of the senate and democrats need to pick up five seats. inis easy to see that today's world of divided -- if a, a democrat democrat is elected president, you will see democrats elected down the ballot. the have a decent shot of having that happen. in play, which is the most up for grabs at this point? >> it is very hard to say.

there are four or five seats that are very competitive. i will start with new hampshire and pennsylvania. those are two states that have been competitive. republicans are defending their seats against very strong calendars -- challengers. everyone knew these seats would be considered tossups, november 8. biting theirll be nails the last minute. from there, republicans have needed to play my camel with a bunch of other seats. whack-a-mole for a bunch of other seats. -- if a sudden, democrats sorry, republicans are battling in red states like missouri and north carolina and indiana where they are trying to defend

republican seats. democratic challengers have sprung up to make it a competitive race. there are about four to five or even six very close races that could go either way. those are the races that will decide control of the senate. me throw one more out of florida. marco rubio versus patrick murphy. where does that stand? leaninglieve that is towards marco rubio he has the name recognition in the money. race rathernto the late. the writingcans saw on the wall, if they did not have a guy as prolific as a fundraiser as marco rubio, they needed him to get in. he got in, but it is still a surprisingly tight race. he is relatively close to his

challenger, democrat patrick murphy, in the polls. i think marco rubio's name recognition and cubans tend to be the ticket splitters. i think they will give him a slight edge to win. it will be a surprisingly tight race considering marco rubio's star power. >> let me revisit new hampshire for a moment. how are the candidates looking there? is the republican candidate receiving flak for giving support to donald trump during a debate? able to pullen support surprising way up -- surprisingly well in spite of that. right now, she is up about eight point in a half over -- a point

and a half over the governor. able to outperform donald trump in her state a -- by as much as eight point. that is almost unheard of by any lawmaker in the senate. that means there is 8% of new hampshire voters willing to split the ticket. it suggests that she has staying power among new hampshire residents than a lesser candidate would have. most political observers think that if hillary clinton wins new hampshire by five points, no matter how good of a campaign she has run -- she will be done. that just comes down to donald trump being her achilles' heel. phillips, she is here to talk about the senate races that are important to keep an eye on. amber phillips, thank you for

your time. >> thank you. fromnight, live coverage candidate for an international perspective on the u.s. elections with the canadian broadcasting corporation's election night coverage. we will have that life starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span two. election night is tonight on c-span. you can watch the results and be a part of a national conversation on the outcome. at the be on location donald trump and hillary clinton election night headquarters. starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern time, you can watch live tonight on c-span or on www.c-span.org. you can also listen to our live radio coverage on the c-span radio and -- app. >> in 1979, c-span was created

as a public service america's tape -- cable television companies. it is brought to did a your cable or satellite television provider. -- brought to you today by your cable or satellite television provider. [applause] gentlemen, the splendid president of these united states. [applause]

president carter: i promised you -- i promised you four years ago that i would never lie to you. so, i can't stand here tonight and say it doesn't hurt. the -- and say it does not hurt. the people of the united states have made their choice, and, of course, i accept that decision , but i have to admit not with the same enthusiasm that i accepted the decision four years ago. i might say -- [applause] president carter: i have a deep appreciation of the system, however, that lets people make a free choice about who will lead them for the next four years. about an hour ago, i called governor reagan in california, and i told him that i

congratulated him for a fine victory. i look forward to working closely with him during the next few weeks. we'll have a very fine transition period. i told him i wanted the best one in history, and i then sent him this telegram -- and i'll read it to you. "it's now apparent that the american people have chosen you as the next president. i congratulate you, and pledge to you our fullest support and cooperation in bringing about an orderly transition of government in the weeks ahead. my best wishes are with you and your family as you undertake the responsibilities that lie before you." and i signed it, jimmy carter. [applause] [cheering] [applause]

president carter: i have been blessed as only a few people ever have to help shape the destiny of this nation. in that effort, i have had your faithful support. in some ways, i have been the most fortunate of all presidents. i've had the daily aid of a wise man and good man at my side. in my judgment, the best vice president anyone has ever had. [applause] [cheering] [applause]

president carter: i've not achieved all i have set out to do. perhaps no one ever does. but we have faced some top issues. -- tough issues. we have achieved some very important goals for our country. these efforts will not end with this administration. the effort must go on. nor will the progress that we have made you lost when we leave office. the great principles that have guided this nation since it's very founding will continue to guide america through the challenges of the future. this has been a long and hard fought campaign as you all well know. we must now come together as a people to unified solve the problems that are still before us. to meet the challenges of a new decade. i urge all of you to join in

with me in a sincere and fruitful effort to support my successor when he undertakes this great responsibility as president of the greatest nation on earth. [applause] present carter: hours -- is adent carter: ours special country. our influence will always be greater when we live up to the principles of freedom, of justice, human rights for all people. god has beenn -- good to me. god has been good to this

country. i'm think of to have been able to serve you in this capacity. i'm thankful for the successes that we have had. you have been with me in every good thing that i have tried to do. there's an old yiddish proverb i have thought of in the days and months i held this office. goes, "god gives burdens and also shoulders." you have also readily given me your shoulders, your faith, your prayers. no man could ask any more of his friends. i wanted to serve as president because i love this country, and because i love the people of this nation. >> we love you. >> we love you, too. [applause] [cheering]

[applause] carter: finally, let me say, i am disappointed tonight but i have not lost either love. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ [applause] ♪ [no audio]

[no audio]

governor reagan: let me just say first of all, this has been -- well, there's never been a more humbling moment in my life, and i am not only humbled by the extent of what has happened tonight. even if it had been the cliffhanger that all of us, i think, were expecting, it would have been the same way. but just to have had the support of the people of this country. i consider the trust you have placed in me sacred, and i give you my sacred oath that i will do my utmost to justify your faith. [applause] governor reagan: earlier this evening, i spoke on the phone with president carter.

he called. the president pledged the utmost in cooperation in the transition that will take place in these coming months. i offered him my own cooperation. he graciously said that he wanted this to be the -- [applause] [cheering] reagan, we just wanted to show you what the map of the united states looks like as of 8:00 tonight. governor reagan: all right. when that began to slide, i thought the world was going out just as i was getting in. [laughter] governor reagan: as i say, the president was most gracious

about this. and now, all across america, there are some people that i owe a great debt of thanks to. there they are -- they are meeting tonight in our national headquarters in arlington, virginia. the national committee people, the dedicated professionals who made the campaign run, and in every state, in the counties, in the cities, in the precincts, to all of them who worked so tirelessly -- literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and i've seen them at work throughout the country on this campaign. i just owe them an immeasurable debt of thanks. to george and barbara bush, our -- [cheering] [applause] reagan: our running mates down in texas, no one has worked harder than they have. we only crossed paths a few

times on this campaign and had to go out of our way to do it, because their schedule was so heavy. and i can tell you, we're going to have a true partnership and a true friendship in the white house. [applause] governor reagan: and now, as i said before, my family -- i'm so grateful to them. for the love, for the support, and for the hard work, because some of them were out on the campaign trail easily as much as nancy and i were. speaking of nancy, she's going to have a new title in a couple of months. [applause] [cheering] dr. reagan: -- governor reagan: it isn't really

new, because she's been the first lady in my life for a long time. [applause] reagan: now, we'll share that a little bit in the future. you know, abe lincoln, the day after his election to the presidency, gathered in his office the newsmen who had been covering his campaign, and he said to them, "well boys, you're -- your troubles are over now. mine have just begun." i think i know what he meant. lincoln may have been concerned in the troubled times, in which he became president, but i don't think he was afraid. he was ready to confront the problems and the troubles of a still youthful country determined to seize the historic opportunity to change things. and i am not frightened by what lies ahead, and i don't believe the american people are frightened by what lies ahead.

[applause] governor reagan: together, we're going to do what has to be done. we're going to put america back to work again. [applause] governor reagan: you know, i aim to try and tap that great american spirit that opened up this completely undeveloped continent from coast to coast and made it a great nation, survived several wars, survived a great depression, and we'll survive the problems we face right now.

[applause] governor reagan: when i accepted your nomination for president, i hesitatingly but -- i asked for your prayers at that moment. i won't ask for them in this particular moment, but i will just say i would be very happy to have them in the days ahead. [applause] governor reagan: all i can say to all of you is, "thank you," and thank you for more than just george bush and myself. thank you, because, if the trend continues, we may very well control one house of the congress for the first time in a quarter of a century. [cheering] [applause]

governor reagan: we have already picked up some governorships, and bill brock told me on the phone just a moment ago that in a number of states we have turned the state legislatures around, and so, for the first time, they are a majority for us. you did it. i have one message that i have to give before i leave. i've been upstairs on the phone trying to get ahold of two celebrations -- two parties that are going on. one in tampico, illinois, where i was born, and one in dixon, illinois, where i grew up. i've got two hometowns. and finally, we managed to get the radio station in that area, and they told us that they would broadcast my message to the two

parties that are going on. so, to all of them -- thank you, too. back there in the home town. thank you all. [cheering] [applause] [inaudible] ♪ >> after a campaign that has lost for many days since the first candidate declared candidacy for 2016, the major parties got out and voted today. husbandinton with her voting in chappaqua, new york. donald trump also voted in new york. here is a look. >> are you concerned about voter fraud? concerned.always

[inaudible] >> let security get in. [inaudible] thank you. thank you. i am your future president. how much is that? >> one. mr. trump: ego. -- here you go. >> thank you. mr. trump: have a good time, everybody. [inaudible] thank you, inc. you.

-- thank you, thank you. what are your thoughts so far -- >> what are your thoughts so far? mr. trump: there he did, very good. >> any states your focus on right now? [inaudible] >> he you go. you will fill out -- here you go. will fill out the ballot here. sticker? like a why not? thank you. [inaudible] >> good morning.

>> you have a final message for the people of america? mr. trump: make america great. >> how are you feeling today? mr. trump: it is a great honor. [inaudible] very excited. it is a great opportunity. there is tremendous upward -- there is tremendous enthusiasm. you see it and everyone should all over the world -- you see it in everyone. it is all over the world. a great feeling. we do want to win. [inaudible] >> ok, you are going to fill out the ballot.

mr. trump: i like the hair color. >> they do so much. once you are done, you will go over to the basketball hoop and handed in. -- hand it in. mr. trump: thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> are you ok?

>> yes, i'm good. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> one moment, please. ok?e ok? -- are you >> yes, i'm great. [inaudible] >> inc. you. -- thank you. [inaudible] >> who did you vote for? mr. trump: tough decision. [inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> you have any plans for tomorrow? mr. trump: we will see what happens. >> donald trump voting earlier today with his life malala -- with his wife melania and the rest of his family. later tonight, we will get a perspective from canada on the elections. be on their program "the national" on 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span two.

good morning. guest: good morning. iowans who will be managing the polling sites. we had a lot of early voting that was done. early voting 120 days out for some of our military and missionary folks in distant locations. we had over 600,000 early votes already cast. the polls open at 7:00 this morning and will not close until 9:00 tonight. host: one of the questions about this election is voter fraud. how does i would prevent that from happening? guest: we have some pretty reliable checks and balances in place. we have online registration, and

people that use that give us every opportunity to verify that they are legitimate. our policy is that we can have participation and integrity. it is not mutually exclusive. the challenge is to use technology so that we do not disenfranchise people, but we also have safeguards to make sure that legitimate voters cast their ballots. host: when it comes to the machines, what kind of machines are used in iowa? how are they made secure for today? guest: our equipment is certified by our office. we are still old-fashioned. we still vote by paper ballot. we had an mechanism by which we can do a hand count if there is a question of whether or not the machines are doing their job properly. we do not vote by the internet or e-mail. it is a good old paper ballot. checks and balances. asdo everything bipartisan

democrat and republican poll workers are side-by-side. att: today, the our concerns some locations of voter intimidation. how do you deal with that? guest: we have a good policy in allowedat the only ones to be at polling sites are professional poll workers and the poll watchers certified by both political parties. anyone other than that is asked to leave. it should be a comfortable experience. frankly, there is nothing wrong with it being a fun experience, too. people can come in and said -- and show their support for the process. host: what do you think the participation rate will be like

this cycle? we are probably looking at about 2 million real, active voters. we will probably see somewhere close to 70% of registered voters participating. the weather is great here. people have gotten a lot of information. the polling sites are open, and i think the most political parties are hitting it hard. i also think the nonparty folks are hitting it hard. host: how much participation have you had from early voting? guest: about 600,000. 2000licans are up by about compared to four years ago. democrats are down about 20,000. no party affiliation are down about 20,000. there is a slower start getting out of the gate. frankly, this has been in unusual presidential election cycle. host: paul paik, the secretary

of state for iowa, joining us to talk about preparations on this election day. pate, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. be of voter. voter.e a >> election night on c-span. you can be on location to see the results at the donald trump and hillary clinton election night headquarters. you can watch live tonight on c-span at www.c-span.org or listen to our coverage on the free c-span radio app. sunday roundtable focusing on religion and politics. we want to welcome the president of the constitutional accountability center. what ispresident of the constitl accountability center. loss are a nonprofit

center that focuses on promoting the progressive promise of the constitution. we do that through supreme court litigation and the focus on issues that range of cross the constitutionalconstitution port, race and criminal justice, the environment, equality, affirmative action, immigration. something that is obviously interest right now. explain your organization. rex the public interest law firm. percent people from all space. we recently defended the right speech in the military. muslim prisoner. we recently defended the little sisters of the poor and the right to provide compliant health care. we believe religious read him is

essential to human dignity. we proudly defend people of all in the central court. happeningng that is in churches across the country this sunday, an appeal from mike pence, an evangelical former who has talked about being born again. your reaction to that. his appeal to churches around the country. >> i think obviously the places where people come together and congregate are places where they issues. about isre we get into trouble churches are tax exempt under code, which means not income make. have to pay

on their own -- taxes on their can deduct but they from their taxes. in return we will not sanction political activity. not campaigning for or against a candidate. you can still talk about the important issues. we want to subsidize all of the other great works in the public interest. >> we should point out he was running for reelection. it does bar tax-exempt charitable groups.

churches all under the tax code. >> it is absurd to think we would get the irs password and penalize organizations for religiousheir mind on leaders. speaking truth to power on abolishing slavery, racy quality, promoting present programs.tion all of these things religions do . these are any enormous benefit to taxpayers. we should not give the irs power sermons. preachers are or speaking to their congregations religious issues, they should

threat of thehe irs punishing them for their political views. >> congress shall make no law of replacing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or bridging the speech or the right of the press for people to peacefully assemble. >> that is exactly right. we talk about the wall of the state.ion of church and there is notnsure an establishment of reaction prefer one candidate over another. it is there to protect religion. the idea is you wanted this idea

keep the government from tainting the religious beer. our progress like the religious equalityrd racial abolishing slavery and jim crow laws. there is nothing that says they cannot argue for racial equality. that is where we see the court saying it is constitutional to where you get to come if you want to have , whether itonations is a church or other organization, there are a lot wellare not religious as

but engaged for other reasons. you can certainly engage in that conversation in your personal or if you choose to organize earned a different provision of the tax code. code hashe way the tax been written and upheld by the court. >> here is what the candidates have been saying. we will begin with donald trump. he was in cleveland heights, ohio. every day byht your community and family. raise children in the light of god. i will always support your church and defend your right to worship always. raise children in the light of god. i am here today to listen to your message.

here willpresence -- to reach new audiences. many people out there that needed.ely it is the foundation of progress. some people say when because we realistic. pledge to you we will take away the johnson amendment, of oftakes away the voice your pastors and amendments. quickly.nd >> the johnson amendment that for and put together by then senator lyndon johnson. a final debate that took place in las vegas, nevada.

>> i think when we talk about the supreme court it raises the issue in the election. country will we be? what kind of opportunities will ?e provide what kind of rights will americans have? i feel they need to stand on the side of american old. for me, that means we need a supreme court that will stand up and say no to citizens united. i have major disagreements with

my proponents about these issues that will be before the supreme court. feel it is up we not reverse roe v wade. that we stand up against citizens united. week and and basically say the supreme court should represent all of us. the kind of people i would be looking to nominate to the court. would be in the great tradition powerful,g up to the .f our rights as americans >> the constitutional legal issues that were framed in the final debate by hillary clinton. it not ok for churches to a political party but ok for employers and unions and others to do so?

comment to say take away taxes. finally, the constitution does not say separation of church ends eight. a lot on the table. >> it is a written to think irs.hes need the createsblishment clause space between government and religion. that is violated when the irs is power. they are given exempts -- taxes as of the great social work they do. with all the irs abuses, who

would want the irs to have the power? these are the economy moments when martin luther king was a arrested. pleading with both candidates to 10. or nick refused and kennedy agreed. publicly announced he was switching because of kennedy's reaction. it would have been a violation of the constitution. governor mike pence making an appeal. right or wrong? >> candidates should feel free to appeal to all group of people in our country and should not be

status.ed because of there is nothing wrong with churches speaking out on the issues. speaking about particular issues. the problem is when it comes to specific election hearing. there will not be a taxpayer particular a political election hearing by churches or any five of 13 organization. you can speak out about the range of them were in issues. people from all ideological perspectives. we saw an example of this when churchtrump came to the to talk about flint michigan in the water crisis.

i think that is a good vision. because the ideas you do not tax they are subsidizing political act committee, which many might , that is where you draw the line. sitting in the back listening differences. that is not at all what they are doing. guidelines are quite clear. we have not seen that actually happened.

baxter who serves as senior counsel. religion and politics and campaign. let's get your phone calls. regina from kansas city, missouri. >> i am a bible reader. not wish for any pastor to be involved. my opinion about my beliefs is god is my provider, not the government. that is the difference between unbelievers. that is god's waste. is, they haveg send the word political to

. therefore it changes the pastors message. it is the pastors right to speak against sin. say this person is a center for the saying these , they you can kill a baby up to the ninth month, then that right andstitutional alone forto be left free speech. >> thank you. obviously pastors do and can issuesbout the important , particularly about abortion.

they can also speak about a host of other controversial issues. the distinction is just on the x hearing.lection ways you can get past this. some of the more political organizations. donations do not get to be that the from your own personal income taxes. it is important to think about were told happen if we have a lyrical donations be tax-deductible. that would essentially be subsidization or wealthier americans.

we want to encourage or not, that is not something to wealthy wealthye more americans have more influence on politics. >> right now the constitution in forbids this. >> question 790 in the blame amendment. he was targeting nonprofit organizations. these amendments are very similar. knowledge and the rosetta anti-catholic biased. they are basically amendments and the constitution's use too far religious organizations on

equal terms. countless social services. recent study found $1.2 economy out of the .ecause of organizations hundreds of thousands of a with hiv-aids with alcohol addiction and mental illnesses from the u.s. and-- from the this is really a violation of the establishment clause. effort to reveal -- repeal this amendment. >> my understanding from the is a lot of it has to do with the placement of the 10 monument.ts suggesting giving state funds for such a purpose would filing

constitution, we have to think about the federal constitution. adjust the words constitutionstate give out to the protections. legislate in areas where the federal constitution does speak to those areas. states from going lower than the minimum of the right the constitution. would behe concern even if you change the oklahoma constitution, that change could federalthe constitution. we have had the federal supreme court say this is thereforetional and strictly religious purpose. they have allowed them when it a historical display.

but if it is for religious reasons, that is the federal constitution. display.ten to catherine from springfield, massachusetts. >> the book of matthew explains everything. the tax collector asked peter is the master pays taxes. who do they pay taxes back of strangers. he told him go take a hook, go and get a coin for me and you. church is not ahead of him. he said my kingdom, not this

world. we are in his thing them. , in't lame the government blame the greedy pastors. they don't feed the flock, they feast the flock. tweet fromo share a a viewer who says the irs does control the power to limited speech. tax exempt means no politics in church. >> the idea there is a bright line for the irs to enforce is false. says religious organizations and others cannot participate directly or indirectly in any campaign for a candidate. there is a committee called the political activities for committee that does have power to review sermons and

have crossedthey .he line or not the idea that there is a clear line is false. happened is you have created a system where those that have enough money to hire lobbyists are able to speak out fear.t your local community churches are all concerned if they speak out, they will be targeted by the irs. pastors are free to stand up and candidate that certain things are not accept people. are free to stop going to churches or donating. irs we should not have the be the arbitrator of the issues. maverick says the problem is it is not up to them. identifying sin is one thing.

damnation another. it felt bj past the amendment in 1930 four, why not strict felt n 1930 four, why not strict lands worse until after 1995? >> i am enforced.t was not not a lot of debate on the amendment at the time. think as we have had a greater of political money in politics, big money in politics that the concern has grown a little bit more in the wake of ensure the way we donate to campaigns is more transparent than other ways where you can not disclose you are a donor. that is where these other organizations come into play. governs the tax code. we have choices.

if you want to get the benefit of tax exemption, i think it is and makes sense you would then be subject to the tax code. if you do not want to be tax-exempt, you certainly do not be. to if you want to organize under a , i am not a tax lawyer so i cannot dictate that. you have the options. that is why the courts have upheld the johnson amendment in c amendment. you can choose whether or not to get the subsidy that allows churches to do very good social work. >> every sunday we welcome viewers on the bbc parliament listeners.

focus is religious politics. senior counsel for the becket fund for religious liberty. it people want to go to the website. >> we are at the u.s. constitution website. >> thomas and humble, texas. >> america is great. unitedou repeal citizens , and what does the clinton do you go >> i think that was a question for eric. i am happy to talk about citizens united. comment on have a citizens united.

we are only taxed when we tell government to tax us. it is not a gift when the government does not tax us. certain social benefit should be toxic and because of the enormous benefit to the tax they vulnerable populations. it would violate the say weshment clause to will only not tax you if you our political view of things. the irs should not be in the ever having power to tell religious readers but they saying onnot be important issues. >> churches can get out from of the irs with no exemption, do they need to be tax exempt? >> tax-exempt enormousions divide to our society.

donate and toto check their contribution from income that would be taxed. we should not punish organizations that meet the because we do not agree with their politics. if a church once to speak out moral character of a political candidate, i do not how anyone could like the idea of the irs deciding whether of that is director and direct in a campaign. matthew from roscoe, georgia. morning. >> good morning. when you go to church and listen to the power -- pastor, he is the tater.

either believe him or not him. it is not like it did tater ship. when we came up with the difference between church and state, it was because we left america.o come to england had a saying everyone was a member of the church of england whether you believed it or not. when we came to america, there was a difference between the government telling people what say, and that is the between church and state. the government did not force become baptist or .hurch of god or atheist the government does not force were.to become what they >> would you agree or disagree? says what is the difference

someone's religion and someone's point of view or life? >> i believe tax allwill try to churches. believing in the different things, it is a personal belief. somebody to force you to is what thething difference between church and up.e was trying to set >> i love that the caller brought in history of coming to up.united to build a country that was founded on religious diversity. the first amendment reflects that.

then we also have the establishment clause. view ofmandated religion. the constant balance we are strike is to respect the founding was him of tolerance -- tolerance and believersand ensuring and nonbelievers can worship or not worship in the way they please. represents a multitude of choices about cities and goods we want to encourage and roster. example, the mortgage interest reduction because we decision thatlicy it is a good idea to have homeownership. churches