We would like to take this opportunity of reaffirm our support for direct election of Undergraduate Council executives and congratulate the council on taking the necessary steps to turn direct elections into a reality. Popular election of executives would add accountability to the council and increase its actual representation of the student body; they would also give council leaders greater legitimacy as student representative before the administration.

We were especially reminded of the importance of a legitimately-elected student body president last week, when council President Joshua D. Liston '95 was identified by the national media as a spokesperson for the student body in the Gina Grant case, despite his protestations to the contrary. We would also like to address several arguments against the proposal, and show why we still feel that direct elections are a good idea, in light of the upcoming referendum on the issue.

One argument against the proposal, raised by Student Affairs Committee Chair Randall A. Fine '96, is that direct elections will not succeed in increasing student interest in the council. Fine notes that at the University of Kentucky, which has popular elections for student government officers, only 10 percent of the student body votes.

Fine's argument regarding student interest may be true to a certain extent. No one expects that this change will cause student interest in the council to skyrocket, transforming council members into international celebrities whose every move is monitored by the campus press. Many students will still be apathetic about the council and its activities.

But we wonder whether any of this really matters. Was increasing student interest the major reason behind the change in the first place? Current council President Joshua D. Liston '95 proposed the bill in accordance with his promise to make the council more representative of Harvard as a whole. past council president David L. Hanselman '94-'95 cited increased executive credibility when dealing with the administration. "Raising student interest" appears to be nothing more than a straw person conveniently set up by opponents of direct executive elections.

Increasing student interest in the council appears to be a consideration of minor importance compared to the other arguments in favor of direct elections. But even if only 10 percent of the student body votes, it would still be an improvement over the current figure, the proportion of the student body represented by council members themselves (roughly seven-tenths of one of one percent in the last election).

The second argument against the proposal is that it would lead to candidates spending ridiculous amounts of money on council elections. (Think of this argument as the "Huffington meets Harvard" point.)

There are ways of addressing this problem fairly easily. We support the amendment to the resolution that calls for a cap of $200 to be placed on a campaign spending in a popular election. Although enforcement might be challenging---someone could probably spend more than $200 if they sneaky about it--the amendment would serve its intended purpose of preventing thousands-dollar postering campaigns and obvious media blitzes.

The council will address the issue of direct elections within the next few weeks, and we hope that they make the correct decision. If the council fails to pass the constitutional change by the required two-thirds margin, however, the student body will have a chance to make its voice heard in a referendum in early May.

We urge students to support the call for direct elections, especially since 75 percent of a required 50 percent turnout must favor the amendment if it is to pass. We have much to gain--and nothing to lose--from an improvement in the working of democracy on our campus.