To the Editors of The Crimson:

The following are comments on the issue of the requirements for passage of the student constitution.

1. When the constitution was presented by the Constitutional Convention to the Faculty Council it contained the requirement that ratification would require approval of two-thirds of those voting in a referendum. The Faculty Council was concerned that this would allow ratification with only limited support if turnout were very low. It indicated that it would expect at least 50 percent of the student body to vote in the referendum in order to consider the constitution approved. That condition was the subject of debate and was well publicized at the time. It was reported five times in The Crimson (February 25, February 27, March 3, March 15, and March 16) as well as in the Independent and the Gazette. Perhaps most relevant, it was well known to many of the leaders of the opposition to the constitution.

2. The turnout requirement added a major hurdle to the passage of the constitution. It is useful to remember that, in the absence of the turnout stipulation, the constitution would have won easily no matter what opponents did--abstained or voted "no." That this additional hurdle--which greatly reduced the likelihood that the constitution would pass is now invoked to call into question the legitimacy of the passage is some what perverse:

3. It is true that the constitution would not have achieved the turnout threshold if those who voted "no" had abstained. Such odd results are possible in many voting situations. A voter may get the least desired outcome by pursuing the most desired outcome. (A voter who prefers Carter to Reagan votes for Anderson and gets Reagan.)

However, even if the opponents of the constitution had been fully aware of the turnout requirement, it is unclear what they would or should have done. Now that the vote is counted, it looks as if abstention would have been a better strategy. But that is only known after the fact. It is possible that a movement of "no" voters to abstention might have led to the passage of the constitution where it would otherwise have been defeated--if, for instance, turnout were high but the "yes" votes were running about two-thirds of the voters.

It may be that the opposition to the constitution did not pay as much attention to the rules as they should have, or they may have been well informed about the rules but did not pursue an appropriate strategy in opposing the constitution (though it is only hindsight that tells us that the strategy was inappropriate, so we ought not to be too harsh on them). But their failure does not seem adequate grounds for redoing the referendum.

4. The Crimson editorial of March 21 suggests that a new referendum should be called with the requirement that a majority of the entire student body vote for the constitution for it to be ratified. Only then would we know that the student body adequately supported the constitution. I believe this to be wrong. It may be useful to clarify the various ratification procedures since they do not seem to be well understood. The original draft of the constitution by the first student committee contained the provision that a majority of all students would have to approve it for ratification. The later draft changed this to the requirement that two-thirds of those voting had to approve it. (It is important to note that each of these schemes was devised by the student drafting groups, not by the Faculty.)

Which approach is better? The answer is not clear. The goal, I assume, is to make sure that the constitution would pass if it were strongly approved by the student body--more strongly than would be reflected, for instance, in an ordinary election where a majority of those voting can choose a candidate or pass a bill. It is, however, uncertain which of the two ratification rules does this better. The rule that a majority of the student body must vote for the constitution ensures that it will pass only if a large number supports it, but it has the unfortunate feature of allowing passage in the face of very widespread and strong opposition (i.e., it could pass even if 49 percent of the student body strongly opposed it.) The rule deals adequately with apathy, but not with strong opposition. The rule that two-thirds' of the voters must approve the constitution works the opposite way. It allows strong opposition to defeat the constitution (since it takes only one-third of those voting to defeat it) but has the unfortunate feature of allowing passage of the constitution in the face of massive apathy (if two-thirds of a very small number vote for it.)

The rule that was used--a two-thirds favorable vote with a minimum of 50 percent turnout--is not a perfect rule, but it is a quite reasonable compromise between the two other rules. It is probably better then either alone in ensuring that the constitution would pass only if there were widespread support. One might still prefer a different rule if one were more concerned about apathy and did not care about opposition (or vice versa), but it would be hard to claim that the alternative rule were unambiguously better.

5. In fact, the constitution did pass quite strongly with 75 percent of the vote and a 58 percent turnout. It would be a shame if the decisiveness of that passage were obscured. Sidney Verba '53   Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education