www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/international/middleeast/25iran.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
Mr. Ahmadinejad's populist economic policies, his calls for raising wages and lowering prices and his general promise to wipe out systemic corruption seemed to strike a chord in the poorer provinces to the south of Tehran, where he ran strongly. Mr. Rafsanjani, a wealthy merchant and a long-time power broker, came to represent a status quo that voters seemed to reject.
"Poor provinces have voted massively for Ahmadinejad," an Interior Ministry official told Reuters.
Reformers here worry that an Ahmadinejad victory will mean an end to social changes that have brought a widening of personal freedoms under the departing president, Mohammad Khatami.
It might also complicate talks with European nations over Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Ahmadinejad has criticized Iran's negotiators for making too many concessions, while Mr. Rafsanjani has appeared more willing to negotiate.
Throughout the day on Friday, the city was tense and buzzing with activity. Polling places appeared to be more crowded than they were during the first round of balloting last Friday, when the field was reduced to two candidates from seven. The appearance of Mr. Ahmadinejad in the second round of the contest had shocked the political establishment, conservatives as well as reformers, which never took his candidacy seriously and immediately insisted that he could have succeeded only through fraud.
But in the runoff campaign, it became clear that Mr. Rafsanjani, a central figure in Iran's leadership since the revolution, had failed to pick up the mantle of reform, though he tried, and had alienated many conservatives. By Friday night, even some of his supporters were acknowledging that it would be hard for him to win unless people who did not vote in the first round turned out to vote against Mr. Ahmadinejad.
In practical terms, if Mr. Ahmadinejad wins it will mean that conservatives will have a monopoly on power, controlling all of the elected and appointed institutions that govern the country. That might not have a profound impact on actual policies, since hard-liners already have the final say. But it could change the way the government approaches and carries out those policies, a former government official said. On nuclear policy, for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad made it clear that he would fight for Iran's right to enrich uranium for civilian uses.
"Ahmadinejad will have no obstacle: the Parliament, judiciary and the leadership will have maximum cooperation with him," said Alireza Akbari, a former deputy defense minister and a general with the Revolutionary Guards.
As the runoff campaign headed into the final day, Mr. Rafsanjani's camp, apparently sensing its fading prospects, issued a last-minute proposal, one that had been discussed for years, to privatize the vast bulk of state-owned industries and distribute the wealth in shares of stock to each Iranian family.
But the proposal was complex, especially when compared with Mr. Ahmadinejad's promises of pensions, expanded health insurance, pay raises and low-interest loans. It also exemplified what came to be regarded as Mr. Rafsanjani's main weakness: the idea that, if elected, he would simply recycle the same policies and approaches that many people believed had stalled the nation's development.
Mr. Ahmadinejad has been an ultraconservative through much of his career, working with the Basiji militias and as an engineer with the Revolutionary Guards during the war with Iraq in the 1980's. But in his campaign, while he often invoked God and his faith, he has usually done so in the context of his populist proposals to lower prices, raise salaries and create jobs.
"Ahmadinejad was constantly among the masses of the people," Mr. Akbari said. "He adopted a very honest approach."
Nothing could have better illustrated the differences between the candidates than the manner in which they voted Friday. Mr. Rafsanjani, in his white flowing clerical robes and turban, swept into a mosque swarming with security agents, cast his paper ballot in a box, turned to reporters and photographers cordoned behind a barrier, made a few remarks and left. "The election race is tight, but I am ahead of my rival," he said.
Mr. Ahmadinejad , a civil engineer by training, walked up to a polling place and got in line to wait his turn to vote. He was swarmed by supporters chanting his name and was eventually ushered up to the box to cast his ballot, only because of the chaos that had ensued.
"As the people's servant, it is my honor to be a part of this endless ocean and I am also honored that our dearest people have their trust in me," he said after voting. "And I do hope I always remain an ordinary member of the Iranian people."
Whether sincere or calculated, Mr. Ahmadinejad's style won more and more converts during the past week. He scored gains not just among the poor but among middle-class people as well, who said that they had tired of a corrupt and inefficient leadership that Mr. Rafsanjani was thought to represent.
"I am a university professor and I voted for Ahmadinejad," Dr. Ali Hajiha said as he left a polling station in a middle-class area in northern Tehran. "I think Mr. Ahmadinejad is better" than Mr. Rafsanjani.
Many of the votes for Mr. Rafsanjani were votes against Mr. Ahmadinejad. "It's a choice between bad and worse," said Farzad Fouladi, 40, who boycotted the polls last week but voted Friday. "I wanted to vote for bad, not worse."
With the conservative forces on the cusp of winning a monopoly on power, the executive agencies of the government, controlled by the reformers, and the hard-liners' Guardian Council were battling over the integrity of the vote even before the polls were closed. After polls closed a week ago, two of the losing candidates charged that there had been voter fraud, charges that were never substantiated, or even investigated.
On Friday, the Interior Ministry tried to shut down some polling places, saying that hard-line sympathizers were interfering in the elections there. But the Guardian Council blocked the effort.
The public fight illustrated the animosity between reformers, who have seen their principles flourish even while their political organizations have withered, and conservatives, who have experienced almost the opposite dynamic. The tension started at the highest levels of the government, but it was evident in polling places around the city.
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting for this article.
