Benjamin P. Schwartz ’10, Charles T. James ’09-’10, Michael C. Koenigs ’09, Andrea R. Flores ’10, and Alexandra A. Petri ’10 discuss their visions for the future during the second UC presidential debate last night in Emerson Hall.

While five Undergraduate Council presidential candidates arrived for their second debate yesterday evening, only four tickets will continue to the next round of the election cycle.

Responding to the first question of the evening about the decision to run for the UC, presidential candidate Roger G. Waite ‘10 promptly declared his plans to drop out of the race at noon today. Waite, who had previously stated that he would be suspending his campaign to work with University Hall during the financial crisis rather than “on the campaign trail scoring political points,” is one of the two self-proclaimed humorous tickets in the race.

With an audience of about 50 undergraduates in Emerson Hall, the first of the two UC-sanctioned debates focused on candidates’ qualifications and their plans to revamp social life.

While the debate did not declare a winner, many audience members said that Benjamin P. Schwartz ’10 and Andrea R. Flores ’10 were the victors, while Michael C. Koenigs ’09 provided the best comic relief.

“I think the thing that sets us apart is experience doing advocacy,” said Schwartz, who has served terms on both the UC and the College Events Board. “I’m the candidate with the most advocacy experience, seeing projects through, start to finish and working with everybody from administrators to alumni to students to actually get things done.”

Flores, the only candidate who has served on the UC for the past five semesters, also highlighted her experience.

“We definitely have the combination of experience and advocacy on the University level to make a lot of our plans happen,” she said of her ticket, which pairs her with running mate and fellow UC member Kia J. McLeod ’10.

Flores walked away with a large endorsement from the Harvard Democrats following the Dems-sponsored debate—the first public appearance for all five candidates—on Monday evening.

Moving to their campaign platforms, Flores and Schwartz focused on improvements to social life at Harvard, both discussing possible uses for the Cambridge Center for Adult Education.

“Our top priority is alternative social space,” said Flores, who outlined her plan to rent out the center with money from the UC’s party fund that had been redirected to upperclass House Committees last spring.

The debate reached its only somewhat contentious point of the night when Flores noted that Schwartz’s similar plan to hold parties at the center did not include funding from the UC’s party grant.

Presidential candidate Charles T. James ’09-’10 focused his responses on his mission to get students involved in service within and outside of the community.

“Our theme is service because what we see is a student body that cares so much about specific issues that we have fallen out of touch,” James said.

The event was interspersed with humor when moderator and Satire V member Joshua A. Rosenthal ’09 questioned Koenigs, the second humorous candidate. Koenigs highlighted his plan for green power and condemned his wasteful opponents for making campaign posters that were “the size of small states.”

“That is like a giant sycamore tree that just died,” he said. “Or maybe even an oak. My campaign is not going to kill trees.”

The Flores-McLeod ticket is currently leading in the campaign’s endorsement count, with support from the Dems, Strong Women Strong Girls, the Environmental Action Committee, and the Asian American Association. Schwartz-Biggers is second with endorsements from the Black Students Association and Freeze College Magazine.

When Waite exited the debate early to attend a lab, he declared his support for Schwartz due to Schwartz’s membership in the “elitist Fly Club.”