Four years and seven months ago, the founders of the modern Undergraduate Council persuaded their fellow representatives to allow a campus-wide, popular election to determine who among future generations would lead the student government. At the time, this great experiment in representative democracy was drastic, but necessary. "Popular elections will galvanize students, make them informed and interested," predicted former council president David M. Hanselman '94-'95. More importantly, insisted then-president Joshua D. Liston '95, the new system would give the council what it currently lacked--credibility among students and administrators.

But, as we have learned over the years, the credibility that can be afforded by popular elections is far from guaranteed. The low voter turnout that has plagued previous council elections is indicative of the disconnect between the candidates and the student body. It signifies a lack of confidence in council leadership and a dangerous apathy toward the role student government occupies within the College community. At best, popular elections have only brought the council one step closer to a goal that still remains beneath the horizon.

Sadly, this year's field of council presidential and vice-presidential contenders has done little to help the situation. Indeed, the actual selection of leadership is the least important concern of this year's election.

When students log onto the council's electronic voting program this week, they will cast an important vote on the issues of council downsizing and hiking the termbill. On both these issues we urge students to vote "yes." A smaller council--one as small as 50 members--will create contested races and give the body slightly more legitimacy. Furthermore, more funds will better equip the organization to perform its most central duty of doling out grants for student organizations.

But regardless of which name students support on their president and vice-presidential ballot, the chances of true council progress are dim. This year's candidates have failed miserably at galvanizing, informing or interesting the student body. None of the candidates has offered a cohesive vision of council reform. Nor can any of the candidates truthfully claim support from a broad cross-section of the campus. And most troubling, none of the candidates has been able to evoke the confidence necessary to become a campus leader.

Generally speaking, those most experienced on the council are too entrenched to bring substantive change. Those from the outside tout reform-minded ideas that nevertheless belie confusion about the council's scope and function.

But we cannot, in good conscience, simply urge the student body to abstain from voting. Simply to abandon this great democratic experiment, even under the most tempting of circumstances, would be a grave mistake.

In this light, among the current field of sub-par candidates, we endorse Fentrice D. Driskell '01 for council president and Benjamin M. Wikler '03 for council vice president.

Of all the candidates for president, Driskell is the most qualified. Although her specific proposals are hazy at best, she has rightly emphasized that the council's first priority should be reestablishing strong connections to the student body that it purports to represent. She has advocated a "Harvard Census 2000" and placing council feedback cards in the dining halls--measures that are useful as a first step, but will accomplish little without further action.

Like her opponents, most of Driskell's other ideas are essentially vapid and unconvincing. For example, although she is in favor of a term-bill hike, she never specifically described how the additional money would be used. Nevertheless, she has acknowledged the council's structural problems and seems genuinely committed to finding a solution. Driskell has used her two-and-a-half years on the council productively but at the same time has maintained visibility among other sectors of the campus and distinguished herself from the current bureaucratic machine. If elected, we hope Driskell can effectively combine her desire for reform with her understanding of how the council works.

Wikler, a fresh face in the council, has a dedicated track record of attendance and has demonstrated proficiency in working with the administration. The council vice presidency has traditionally been an ambiguous post, but Wikler has a clear-headed approach that will combine bureaucratic responsibilities with student-centered initiatives.

Although certainly far from ideal, Driskell and Wikler are the only candidates capable of leading the council through what is sure to be a turbulent period.

________________________________

DISSENT: Endorsement Misplaced