While much has changed since 1996, the typical focus of an aspiring Undergraduate Council president’s platform has not.

The UC’s focus on improving student life could be dated to 1996, when the council opened up what were then internal presidential elections, more than 15 years after the UC’s founding. Around this time, presidential candidates began touting student-focused platforms, marking a shift from the council’s earlier function.

“The previous [UC] administration held the belief that one of the purposes of the UC was to express students’ viewpoints on national and international political matters,” Beth A. Stewart ’00, president of the UC during the 1998 calendar year, said. She added that in her view, “the purpose of the UC was to make Harvard better for the students.”

Since that initial push toward a student focus, many of the specific initiatives UC leaders have advocated for remain the same.

For example, while Samuel C. Cohen ’00 was vice-president in 1998, he pushed for access to cable television for students and increased funding for student groups—both of which are platform issues in this year’s race.

These lingering issues do not imply that UC leaders have simply been ineffective in their efforts: fly-by lunches, universal key card access, and revised advising systems are all issues for which the UC has advocated.

Yet the enduring nature of these concerns suggest that there are limits to the UC’s power to sway the administration.

Interim Dean of the College David Pilbeam wrote in an e-mail that the influence the UC has on policy-making can vary “from a great deal to none, depending on the decision.”

Just this year, a student-focused UC initiative was reversed by the College administration. The party grant system, which funded the purchase of alcohol for student parties and was created in 2003, was discontinued earlier this semester.

Fostering working relationships with the administration is another evergreen objective of former UC leaders—a sometimes daunting task, depending on the administrator.

“Different administrators were more or less receptive—if they agreed with your idea, there was a much greater chance they were going to be supportive of it,” Cohen said. “My experience was that they would certainly listen and be polite, but if they didn’t agree with you—you were going to have a hard time.”