“When it all comes down to it, I love the UC.” Replace “UC” with “America,” and you’d probably have an authentic George W. Bush quote. Instead, this was presidential candidate Tracy “Ty” Moore II ’06 at the main Undergraduate Council debate two Thursdays ago. And with the council now under the reins of a split ticket, sans Moore, one can only hope that this love will eventually be shared by all Harvard undergrads.

Looking back on it all, however, I’m saddened that the average, non-council, non-newspaper Harvard undergrad was largely deprived of the really absurd, interesting stuff. Why? You could blame The Crimson for not giving in to sensationalism, or chalk it up to general student apathy about council-related news. But either way, people really missed out. In the interest of never letting the smallest story fall through the cracks, here’s just a sampling of the quirks of this winter’s council campaign.

For all the martial, capitalized, Bush-campaign-esque lettering on the orange posters of Matthew J. Glazer ’06 and Clay T. Capp ’06, this ticket was flip-floppier than the auburn locks of its star. The campaign’s online profile of Matt alternated serious paragraphs with personality statements about Matt’s hair and middle name. Surprisingly, on a website filled with fun facts, Capp’s council nickname—The Beer Baron—didn’t get much play.

And too few people must have closely examined their approximately 58-point platform. Indeed, just as the Moore-Nichols website assured me, I did fall asleep reading it. In fact, I was so motivated by my three-hour nap that I made it to Glazer-Capp’s point 41: “Post Shuttle Times.” In a classic case of the interplay between astonishment, rest and Gordon’s vodka, I promptly printed a shuttle schedule and duct-taped it myself to the stone column framing Johnston Gate on my way to an unofficial Moore-Nichols party in the Quad. If only some similarly intoxicated good Samaritans could have added points to the Moore-Nichols platform.

I wondered all along whether Moore-Nichols’ seeming pride in their platform being “not a laundry list” was actually just code for “choice parts of glazercapp.com and teoandsamita.com.” Practically the only original point in the Moore-Nichols platform, the one about placing students on departmental hiring committees, was the point that the campaign least effectively elaborated on. When asked about how he would provide input to faculty about this initiative at the official debate, Moore answered, “Particular methods of input will include email, phone calls, et cetera.” Honest, but apparently not presidential.

I also expected more from the Teo P. Nicolais ’06-Samita A. Mannapperuma ’06 campaign. I assumed that Teo’s and Samita’s experience would sway at least a few voters. But I, for one, was so repelled by the 14—count ’em, 14—extracurricular positions Samita listed in her online profile that I discounted the entire ticket. By my count, someone with 14 extracurricular obligations already will likely not be able to devote her full attention to number 15. As for other students, well, maybe they just weren’t inspired by the blue Teo and Samita posters. Or maybe they just noticed that the Nicolais-Mannapperuma campaign was the only one that didn’t claim to win the official debate.

But perhaps the greatest part of this year’s Undergraduate Council campaign was something that, I’m sure, everyone experienced: the e-mails. Seeing my name on an alphabetical mass email made me want to vote for Glazer-Capp, or Moore-Nichols, as much as it made me feel like an important, individual part of the Harvard community. I’m surprised campaigns didn’t pick up on this “bother factor,” especially since multiple freshman rooms in Weld Hall had signs promising to vote for the candidates that knocked on their doors the least. Looking at the tallies on the white boards outside these rooms, Moore-Nichols was doing the best, with only one visit. Glazer-Capp was way behind with three. Campaigns should probably have rethought their tactics, whether inbox assaults from supporters or obnoxiously frequent door-to-door campaigning.

In any case, it’s all over now. Glazer is President and Nichols is VP. I’m hoping that the record voter turnout this year was less due to these little absurdities tickling voters’ fancies and more to the serious accomplishments undergrads hope the council will achieve. Perhaps more than all these little quirks, the very fact that a split ticket carried the day, just as endorsed by The Harvard Crimson, is the most interesting aspect of this year’s campaign. It’s now up to Glazer and Nichols to transcend hair, middle names and the emotions built up during a frenetic campaign season to deliver on their promises. With twice the tickets, and twice the promises to fulfill, I hope Glazer and Nichols are ready for a busy year.

Alex Slack ’06 is a history concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.