The Crimson's election editorials over the decades have sometimes enthusiastically endorsed favorite candidates. Sometimes lamented the choice thrown at voters by the American electoral process. Following is a compilation of excerpts from editorials over the years, many of which speak as much to the dilemmas of today as to those of yesterday.

1924: The Day of Days

Walt Whitman called it "the Presidentiad." Woodrow Wilson referred to it as a "great and solemn referendum." The average voter, whoever he may be, looks on it as a recognition of his own importance. The cynic may think it a waste of good time and money, but the patriot leaps to the ballot box with an unholy joy shining in his eye.

According to the rules of the game, the man who fails to vote has no justification for complaining about the result. The conclusion is plain. If one wishes to criticize the government during the next four years (and who would give up that priceless privilege?) voting is the prerequisite. But with the choice one of a sphinx, a knee-breached diplomat, or a great wind there is none who will not be eager to choose.

And who will not rejoice that the hour of hoarse spellbinders has at length passed? Wholesale tilting against windmills is over. Campaign literature can now light the first winter fires; and the much-shouted-at burgher can return to straphanging and the comics. Best of all, the tumult has availed but little. Forty-five per cent of the voters will vote as their grandfathers did, 45 per cent will vote as their husbands dictate, and the other misled 10 per cent will vote intelligently. Yet it is those few who will make of today another interesting episode in the drama of American life.

1932: Call to Arms

Whatever the outcome of the election today it will settle no great issue nor will it affirm or deny any political principle. Whether the conduct of the United States government will be measurably altered during the next four years should Governor Roosevelt be elected is in itself doubtful. There is nothing new in this although the present campaign has failed peculiarly to distinguish between the two leading parties. What is important and remains so unaffected by the consequences of today's election is that the working principles of government which are assumed by both democrats and republicans and to some extent by the socialists also are challenged as outworn and inadequate for the necessities of the present day. The challenge in its immediate pressure is economic and political but it carries with it and draws strength from spiritual dissatisfaction. Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic have shown themselves capable of recognizing the basic problems to say nothing of handling them. The socialist party in this country appears to lose its intellectual vigor as it gains in popular support. The party attempts to reform capitalist society from the inside and the consequent moderation, although it appeals to the progressive, destroys its effectiveness for radical, creative political leadership. Communism, alone of the two radical parties, attacks capitalist society from the outside as it logically has to if it would keep its integrity.

Whether the present challenge can be satisfied by a reformed capitalist society or whether it must turn to communism or to a new principle of government is probably beyond the range of undergraduate experience. College men today, however, have a responsibility correspondent to the magnitude of the political and social crisis....

1948: President Truman

The business of choosing a president will be uninspired and abnormally calm this year. From both major candidates the voters have heard too much carping and too much rhapsodic optimism. Many will show their dissatisfaction by turning to a third or fourth party, believing that the next four years are expendable, and hoping for something better in 1952. They fail to recognize, however, with what deadly speed history lopes from war to peace, from boom to bust. Rejecting the path of protest, The Crimson believes it must choose one of the two candidates whose election is possible. The Crimson supports the candidacy of President Truman.

If he reaches Washington, Mr. Dewey has promised to retain the large surplus and to reduce income taxes--at the same time. This would mean drastic budget cuts....In the nation the result would be the undermining, and possibly the scrapping, of many of the great social and economic agencies built up over the past sixteen years. This is what Mr. Dewey's efficiency would mean in Washington.

...Mr. Dewey's opponent has little of the governor's efficient manner. Under great tension, Mr. Truman has frequently made serious errors, such as his angry request to Congress for the power to draft striking railroad workers. His administration has not been smooth. But what Mr. Truman stands for in the way of domestic institutions, and what he has stood for ever since he entered the White House, are measures of greater importance to the prosperity of the nation than efficiency for efficiency's sake.

1956: For Stevenson

The day is at hand. Today voting America will decide whether its faith in the likeable personality is not after all stronger than its faith in conscious leadership. For this is how the campaign has shaped up. On the one hand, there has been good old Ike, with beaming countenance and sincere reassurance. On the other hand, there has been Adlai, looking not quite so All-American, but better-informed and offering a few comprehensive plans for a New America and a chaotic world...

Stevenson will bring intelligence, energy, and some definite programs to the White House. At no time has the United States needed this kind of leadership more. Eisenhower has been "good" but he has not been energetic. Like a good nurse, he has made everyone feel better. But there are deep ills in American and the world which require more than soothing. Only Stevenson seems able to provide the necessary prescription.

1968: No Choice

Over the past year the American people, through their involvement in the political system of this country, have tested that system and challenged it to come forth with exceptional candidates and creative leadership. That system has answered with Humphrey, Nixon and Wallace.

One could debate at length the relative merits of Humphrey and Nixon. Humphrey, once relieved of the burdens of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, might be able to lead us out of war...On the other hand, Nixon might be freer to disavow the Vietnam policies of the past...

But the truth is that both men are desperately out of touch with the mood and the needs of the people they propose to govern. Neither has come close to challenging the rationale for American aggression in southeast Asia, and neither seems capable of the kind of complete disavowal which can best pave the way for an across-the-board restructuring of U.S. foreign policy...

Why not vote for one of the two as the lesser of two evils and mark it down as a grueling but unavoidable duty? One could vote for Humphrey--were the country still not reeling under the impact of a liberal Democratic administration, had Humphrey not allied himself in Chicago with the repressive chieftains of his party, had he not stood against the minority plank on Vietnam, and were he somehow able to throw off the oppressive wieght of his own rhetoric...

How then does one vote? Often--as in 1964, when Johnson was a clear choice over Goldwater--the logic of the lesser of two evils has been persuasive. This year another course is indicated.

Voting is, of course, a political and not a moral act. But it is a myth that in this election one can have political impact only by voting for Humphrey. Nixon or Wallace and it is a myth that by refusing to support one of them, a voter is sacrificing political influence for the sake of a clear conscience.

There are several possibilities. In 23 states, it is now possible to vote for a party of the left and have one's vote counted. In these states, one should vote to the left of the three major candidates. In states like Massachusetts where no left wing candidates qualify for the ballot or for a legal write-in, one should refuse to vote for the Presidency.

None of these actions is equivalent to wasting a vote; for this year, as never before, newsmen and the major candidates themselves are going to be watching the size of the protest vote. Not only, in other words, is it possible to retain moral integrity by this course of action, but one can also effectively register opposition to the inadequacies of all three major candidates and to the backward-looking American system which produced and sanctions them.

1980: No More of the Same

An ambitious governor announced his presidential candidacy in 1974; shortly thereafter, his campaign autobiography appeared, asking a simple question--"Why Not the Best?" The question bears repeating as America goes to the polls to decide an election more frightening than inspiring. The time has come to break with conventional wisdom, to realize that none of the three major candidates is even a plausible answer to Carter's question.

This election presents a dilemma: the three major candidates do not deserve the presidency, and most votes for one will be votes cast against the others. Surely, the voters are reminded, there are gradations of evil. Surely, many reason, Carter is worth supporting, if only to keep Reagan away from the button and the Supreme Court. The argument is sound in some ways; Carter is pertibly less unnerving than Reagan. But the difference between the men is not large enough to warrant support of Carter. If the incumbent represented the spirit of the Democratic Party, if he stood even in name for progressive social and economic policies, then Carter would win our support. But he represents only himself, a coldly ambitious, unprincipled man who can do America little good and much harm.

The best rallying point for America's discontent, the most meaningful protest vote, is for Barry Commoner, candidate for the Citizens' Party. What Commoner shares with others on the left is a willingness to identify the roots of America's economic woes.

Tired of political parties too heartless to help the poor, scared of leaders hell-bent on the nation's and the world's destruction, and yet full of hope for a cooperative and peaceful future, we urge the rejection of Carter, Reagan and Anderson. The answer to the president's question is simple: Commoner and his Citizens' Party are the best choice, and they deserve support.