As an enthusiastic political neophyte in the Harvard polis, I was particularly disappointed by the relatively undemocratic nature of the Quincy House elections for the Undergraduate Council. As a Jew, I was incensed by the insensitivity of those who decided when the election would take place.

The most important night of campaigning is the night before the first day of elections. Since the first day of elections is when the bulk of voting takes place, it is critical that candidates, the night before, leave a fresh impression of their overall qualifications and their positions on the election issues.

Unfortunately, all Jewish candidates across campus who wanted to observe the beginning of Yom Kippur (which began Tuesday at around 6 p.m.) were excluded from this pivotal--perhaps decisive--campaigning time.

There is no reasonable justification for not moving the first day of elections a day forward or backward, for example, to insure that the most important campaigning time wouldn't coincide with the most important Jewish holiday.

Surely this little consideration could have been made. Surely somebody on the executive board could have been sensitive enough to insure that there would be no conflict...

If Harvard is still striving to separate itself from its Christian roots and grow towards being a more tolerant and pluralistic institution, then completely including people of all religions in campus activities is a necessary step.

To add to my frustration with the elections schedule, I was quite disillusioned with the casually crooked manner in which the voting was conducted.

As I sat down to vote, I overheard the election proctor giving uninformed voters strong suggestions on which candidates to support. Such behavior was not surprising, given the background of this proctor.

He holds a position on the Quincy House Committee and probably has political preferences (if not alliances) with respect to the Undergraduate Council. It would be ludicrous to expect that the elections would be run democratically and fairly by such a politically interested proctor.

Candidates spend much time and money to garner the support of their would-be constituents. And this campaigning consumes students' time and energy.

Given all of this involvement, shouldn't voting be handled a little more professionally? Why couldn't a few house administrators monitor the voting? If that isn't possible, then why not at least recruit students from another house who have never had a position on the Undergraduate Council?

Ultimately, if the candidates and the electorate are going to take the U.C. elections seriously, the elections must be treated seriously.

Gil B. Lahav '94, a contributing writer for the Opinion page, won a seat on the Undergraduate Council in the recent elections.