To the Editors of the Crimson:

In considering the supposed fault in the reform plan for class election, that it would be unfair not to allow a man to compete for two such offices as marshal and chorister, the editor evidently overlooked the fact that in the actual working of the old system, this same fault exists. Did a man defeated for one office, under the old system have a fair chance to succeed as a candidate for any other place? A simple exposition of the working of the old caucus system,- the system that will be in operation if the reform is not adopted,- answers this question, and affords the best argument in favor of the new plan.

Hitherto, at the approach of Senior class election, the political managers of the societies have arranged a caucus meeting in their respective houses, to pledge their senior members to support a certain slate. All participants in the caucus are considered in honor bound to vote for a man for that particular office for which he is slated, and for no other. This slate is generally labelled "Representative Ticket"; it does represent an immense amount of intersociety diplomacy, but at least two thirds of the class have had no voice in arranging it. The pledge supporters of the slate generally constitute a majority of those present at the average class election and consequently succeed in putting through the slate although they number but a third of the whole class. Now, while a man might nominally compete for a place for which he was not slated, actually he has no chance for success, because many of his best friends would be pledged against him. Such a candidate would have a better chance under the new plan, for the vote will be much larger and therefore more representative.

A SOCIETY MAN.