I want to be the second-to-last President of the Undergraduate Council who is elected by the council.

Tomorrow, the council will vote on a plan which would change our constitution so that every undergraduate will be eligible to vote for the president and vice-president of the student government. This is the first serious attempt to bring popular elections of officers to the council. The idea has been kicked around in the minds of members, it was discussed in a re-evaluation committee or two and it has appeared on council referenda. Now we are going to try to do it.

David Hanselman and I will be advocating the change tomorrow night. For those of you who have not followed the council in the papers this year, you should know that Dave and I have not agreed on much over the past few months. We attacked each other in the fall presidential race, and he won. I disagreed with some of his actions during his term, and he has been critical of my administration. Yet we are united in our belief that no matter how much good the council brings to students, we will never achieve the legitimacy that we need to effect real change on this campus until students have more direct input to the council.

The leadership of the council should be true leaders of the student body. Yet it is difficult to lead if no one agrees to be followed. The council might tell the student body who the President of the Undergraduate Council is, but students quite frankly, need not care. And who can blame them? The winner may rightfully preside over the council, but he or she has no right representing the interests of the student body. Do you want someone to claim to represent you if you couldn't vote for that person? Of course not, but the Undergraduate Council claims to anyway.

But the real problem is not that council leaders claim to represent students when they really do not. It is that our effectiveness as a body is limited by the lack of a popular mandate. Over the past year, Dave and I have met with many different administrators about several pressing student issues. Though our opinions were always treated with respect, we usually left with the feeling that our thoughts were not viewed as representative of the student body. The president of the Undergraduate Council is seen as just one more campus leader rather than the president of the student body. As Dean L. Fred Jewett '57 said in a recent Crimson article, "The UC is not the only voice of students." Well, isn't that why we have a student government in the first place--so that students can improve their undergraduate life by speaking with a unified voice? Of course, but at the same time, Dean Jewett was right. Again, how can anyone claim to represent all students if they are not elected by all students?

In my opinion, there is no real argument against popular elections. My fear is that tomorrow some council members will put their personal interests before the will of the student body. Let's be honest; it is easier to campaign to 86 members of the council than it is to the entire student body. Tomorrow night it will take 75 percent of the council to approve this popular and necessary reform. And achieving that majority will be a difficult task.

Those who will speak against popular elections will probably give one or two reasons why. The first is that council members know the candidates better and can make a more informed choice. Let me put this argument in other words: "Students do not know what they want. We do. Ergo, they shouldn't vote, and we should." Unfortunately, students do not agree that they do not want popular elections. In an analytic poll that the council conducted last week, we found that 68 percent of the student body wants this popular and necessary reform. Surely, state legislators used to know candidates for the United States Senate better than the people, but did the republic fail when direct elections of senators was instituted? Of course not. Have no fear--the council will still exist if we trust the students with the task of choosing its leaders.

The second argument is less condescending, but equally false: "Most students simply do not know enough about the council. If we did a better job of informing students of what we do then, maybe, we'll give them the vote." This view fails to appreciate just how much of an election is really education. I want someone to tell me what incentive a candidate for president has to start a dialogue with the student body. If I can get 43 votes of council members, then I am the council president regardless of what the student body thinks. Yet if students could vote, you'd be sure that I would tell them who I was and what I thought the council should do. How much did anybody know about Bill Clinton before he announced his candidacy? He wanted your vote, and made sure that you knew where he stood on the issues. On a smaller scale, the same will occur on campus.

Hopefully, neither of these arguments will persuade more than a quarter of the council. But, unfortunately, they might. If popular elections fail tomorrow night, then students will have the opportunity to amend the constitution via a referendum next week. Yet, if the council fails to approve popular elections tomorrow night and if students do not successfully amend our rules, I will sadly announce my resignation as president. I do not want to pretend that I, or the council that I lead, have some sort of mandate to do anything anymore.

Joshua D. Liston is President of the Undergraduate Council, in case you didn't know.