For the Vote or Die Family, choosing to borrow their name from Sean Combs was an appropriate choice—as a voting party featuring vodka and music seems a method “P. Diddy” would likely endorse. But Harvard’s Vote or Die division has a more specific goal than voter turnout; in the recent Undergraduate Council election they endorsed nine candidates who they felt would better serve the needs of a diverse student body. By encouraging students to vote and become more engaged in the process of selecting student government leaders, the Vote or Die Family serves a useful role in a praiseworthy effort.

The campaign seems to have had some success—as six of the nine candidates endorsed were elected to positions on this year’s council. Furthermore, about 50 percent of the 49 elected representatives are ethnic minorities and five black students were elected compared to a meager two last year. Diversity—racial, religious, ideological and otherwise—is important for the council in order to best represent the interests of Harvard’s diverse community. In the future, we hope that this campaign will inspire more members of underrepresented groups to run for office. In fact, a concerted effort to encourage and prod student leaders to run for office—so as to boost the amount of diversity on the ballot—would likely help accomplish the goal of a more diverse council even more effectively than simple endorsements alone.

In truth, while groups are obviously free to endorse the candidates of their choice—be it for their particular political persuasion or unique cultural background—it would be a shame if students relied on endorsements alone to make their voting decision. One isolated characteristic says little about how a candidate will represent constituents once elected to the council. Rather, we hope endorsements lead students to take an active interest in learning about what candidates propose to do as members of the council and as advocates for the campus at large.

Of course, let’s not get ahead of ourselves; the current nature of council campaigning is laughable. Many candidates are lucky if students simply recognize their names, much less have any idea where they stand on issues such as the J-Term, the fee hike or funding for student groups. Most voter “education” comes in the form of posters and quick, superficial door-to-door visits (if you’re lucky). Often students make the tough choices based on who has the cleverest slogan. In races considered by and large to be farcical, endorsements from groups such as the Vote or Die Family, which add at least some level of substance to the campaigns, can only be looked upon favorably.

A record 2,792 students voted in the elections this year, which seems to suggest that many students are at least somewhat engaged in the process. Yet this is still a small number when we consider the relatively easy voting procedure—which is literally a few mouse clicks away over several days. We hope that the Vote or Die Family’s campaigns, along with other campus efforts, will encourage more students to get involved in future elections. The council is, after all, the body best positioned to lobby the administration directly for services and reforms on students’ behalf. Undergraduates probably won’t die if they make uneducated votes (or forget to vote altogether), but they will have to live with the consequence: a set of representatives who may pad their resumes while squandering their roles as student advocates.