Longer UC election period would not make sense

In Thursday’s Crimson, Adam Guren argues that the current Undergraduate Council election process is a “frenzy” which alienates students from their elected representatives (Comment, “Fixing the Frenzy,” Oct. 28).  As Chair of the Election Commission, I’m surprised—and not surprised—that no one from the Crimson bothered to consult any member on the Commission prior to running the editorial.  Unfortunately, Adam is missing some key points:  Firstly, it wouldn’t make sense to lengthen the campaigning period—most candidates do not use the full period that is currently allotted to campaigning.  Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect that the council can prevent students from making outrageous campaign promises. Thirdly, it should be fairly obvious that delaying the elections of freshmen (25% of the council) by several weeks would considerably hinder the ability of the council to function in September and October.

I would also like to add that if students feel disconnected from their council representatives, the Crimson is itself partly to blame.  This September, we had the second highest number of candidates running for office—ever.  Yet the Crimson focused on the fact that this number was down from last year. When the new council was elected, the Crimson article was not about the newly elected representatives, the pressing new business before the council, or the record voter turnout.  The article focused on the fact that a council leader had not been re-elected.  Time and again, I have been disappointed by the Crimson’s coverage of the council.  This latest editorial is no exception.

JON EINKAUF ’06

October 28

The writer is Chair of the Undergraduate Council’s Election Commission.