RESULTS of last week's referendum, in which a Harvard undergraduates voted to install a new student are tainted by perverse procedural rules and voting practices. The Faculty, which must re- constitution before it goes into effect, should invalidity and call for a new one. Otherwise, the Undergraduate Council will get underway next fall under a cloud of an illegitimacy born not of student opposition fundamentally anti-democratic electoral process.

of a 50 percent turnout clause inserted by the Faculty the "no" ballots cast last week by more than a voters actually secured the passage of the con- that threshold requirement left opponents of the to a tactical dilemma whether to abstain from voters more than half of the College joined them, or to against the document, and hope more than a third of likewise.

opponents abstained, the constitution would have since a mere percent of undergraduates cast in favor. New balloting should require approval by of students, a simple requirement that seems only in an election that could restructure student government years to come.

officials in charge of running the election never of- the threshold requirement seems another flaw that helped divide the council's opposition. accounts of election officials who gave voters resituated accounts of the turnout to date--in is to away apathetic undergraduates to vote--also

of the very students responsible for devising in the first place--students who seem likely to on the council--hovered around the ballot-boxes count the votes. A new election run entirely by vested interests would go a long way toward about last week's shenanigans.

undergraduates, we initially overlooked the of the voting requirements, and expected the election in a more fair fashion. But that oversight should Undergraduate Council to become Harvard's official student government on the strength of its own electoral Students here deserve a chance to elect a legitimate government. Until that chance arises, we're willing to stick with what we've got.