As Don Hodel and John R. Thomson fade slowly, but not quietly, into the sunset of graduation, the observer of the Harvard political scene notes the possibility that the Harvard Young Republican Club may undergo a serious metamorphosis. The traditional role of the HYRC ex-President, a role which both these gentlemen have played up to the hilt, has involved the former chief's taking a prominent part in the annual pre-election squabble the club puts on.

Assuming that Hodel and Thomson are succeeded by meeker men, the present entertaining balance of power might be thrown completely off. Think what it will be like next February with no ex-president to beat the drum to scare up new members who will vote for his side. With no one to take former president Thomson's place, the yearly race between the two great factions in the club, Old Guard and Older Guard, might not occur.

This year the HYRC's unique method of stuffing the membership ledger instead of the ballot box has assumed quite considerable proportions. All told, over two hundred and forty members have been rushed into the breaches, held open respectively by Hodel and ex-president Thomson, and by the disgruntled editor of the Times-Republican, Bill Smith.

But this nefarious business is nothing new. In fact, there's a strong precedent for ledger-stuffing. Just two years ago, for instance, the fight was between Thomson and John Eldridge. By the time-honored traditional means, Thomson saved the day for his side, recruiting even apolitical persons and Democrats--proof of his high-minded, unprejudiced criteria.

While these antics of the Young Republicans do strike a divertingly light note in the otherwise serious political activity at Harvard, there must be some who are pained by such ludicrous goings-on. To ease the minds of these individuals, and to put the HYRC in a more favorable light for the Dean's office, two solutions are offered. One is, do away with the presidency altogether and let everybody fight on equal ground. Thinking back on the club's presidents in recent years, this doesn't seem a bad idea at all. The other is, elect both major contenders, and have them rule like the twin consuls of Rome. This way, everybody wins. Difficulties over policy may arise, but it will be hard for the club to become more ineffectual than it is now.

Co-presidency not only would eliminate hard-feelings, but would make the club more stable. Look how long the Roman Republic lasted. Also, having two presidents, or perhaps as many as there are powerful candidates, would make gangster tactics like those used in 1954 unnecessary. Joseph Studholme, the club's office manager, was about to make an investigation of bogus membership cards distributed by one of the factions in that year's memorable ledger-stuffing maneuver. As he was leaving the club office three days before the election, the candidates for that year attacked him, wrested the sole official membership list from his person, and threatened him with physical violence unless he resigned immediately. Indeed, one may consider this an example of how candidates can forget differences and work well together when there is need.

But the idea of there being no Young Republican chief in Cambridge does sound good. Two heads are better than one, but perhaps where the HYRC is concerned, none may be better than both put together.