To the Editors of the Crimson:

For the reasons stated in the CRIMSON editorial of Monday, Section III makes the Australian system proposed unfair and undesirable. The remedy of dividing the offices into two groups and having two voting days would, it seems to me, cause the election to extend over too long a period of time and make it too complicated.

I suggest that we stick to the old form of class meeting and adopt Sections I, II, and III to govern the nominations for office, with the following amendment to Section I:

A defeated candidate for a marshalship may be nominated in the meeting, by any one, for a place on one of the committees.

Then, by voting on the marshalships first we would have another chance to elect to office any prominent and valuable man who might have been defeated as a candidate for marshal.

By having the class seated alphabetically at the meeting and obliging them to keep their seats the voting can be as secret and fair as by the Australian system proposed, and it surely will be far less complicated. '98.