Membership in the club shot up from 75 to 101 in the week preceding the election.

Porter, who denied wrongdoing, was elected, while Sheley, who later expressed regret for her tactics, lost her bid for vice president.

With the high incidence of controversy in recent years among groups who choose their leaders through democratic elections, some feel that the democratic process might lend itself to some difficulties.

Assistant Professor of Law Heather Gerken, who teaches a course on democratic theory and election law, cites two theories.

“Transparency is certainly the most obvious explanatory factor,” Gerken says, noting that open elections will reveal scandals more readily than in selections that take place behind closed doors.

Gerken also observes that the causality may be reversed.

“Large organizations have a tendency not to have as much trust among members,” she says. “The smaller the group, the stronger the bonds.”

As a result, she says, it is uncertain whether democratic selection processes are best for all organizations.

“It’s a hard question. There are all sorts of trade-offs here,” Gerken says. “Does everybody feel like they had a voice? That’s important.”

Middle Ground

The majority of campus organizations resort to consensus-based systems, which are not direct democracies but which allow certain group members to help determine their organizations’ future leadership.

The Harvard University Band’s student leadership body—the senior staff—is chosen by each successive senior staff.

According to Chris A. Lamie ’04, the band’s student conductor and member of the senior staff, the selection process entails an application and audition process.

“We don’t want to turn people away,” Lamie says. “People who apply want to make a contribution.”

Those who do apply then audition for the positions.