This November, students of Harvard College were able to decide who would become the next President and Vice President of the Undergraduate Council. I think Harvard’s students chose poorly by electing Samuel B. Clark ’15 and Gus A. Mayopoulos ’15. But the blame lies not with the student body or the Clark-Mayopoulos comedy duo. It lies with the model for the UC election system: the United States presidential system.

Until casting my ballot on November 18, I was not sure if I would be able to vote in the UC election. Not being able to vote would have been especially frustrating for me, since only a few months ago I myself was heading a student government. I am a Visiting Undergraduate Student from the University of Munich (LMU), and I was Geschäftsführer, the presidential equivalent, of LMU’s student government. My VUS status is also why I was unsure about my voting rights.

The electoral system of Harvard’s UC in some respects closely mirrors the political system of the United States: members of the legislature are elected by communities that they represent in a kind of parliament, and the head of the executive branch is chosen through a popular election.

It makes sense that the UC mirrors the US political system. Students thinking about getting into politics can join the first to find out if they later want to become a part of the second. American students’ widespread familiarity with presidential democracy also makes it easier to engage them: to encourage them to participate in the voting process and in the UC itself.

But the US presidential system is seriously flawed. Letting the general populace decide who will occupy the highest executive office more often than not results in a popularity contest and the election of a mere figurehead. In an election in which the voters know little about the true competence and experience of the candidates, the threat that likeability will be the chief indicator of electoral success becomes even greater. This is exactly what happened in this year’s UC presidential election.

Clark and Mayopoulos organized a well thought out and extremely funny campaign. Promising to bring tomato basil ravioli soup to dining halls every day and to make thicker toilet paper a reality for all Harvard students, Clark-Mayopoulos convinced a majority of the ballot-casting student body, disinterested in collegiate politics, to vote for them.

Harvard’s students chose Clark-Mayopoulos over C.C. Gong ’15 and Sietse K. Goffard ’15, who were endorsed by 93 percent of endorsing UC representatives and various student organizations on campus, including The Crimson, The Harvard Democrats, and The Harvard Republican Club. Gong and Goffard, who are experienced and successful at student lobbying, would have been elected by students interested in the issues. But they were not chosen by the general student populace.

Gong-Goffard, and not Clark-Mayopoulos, would have been elected to head the student government of the University of Munich. The student government of my home institution mirrors the political system of Germany insofar as the chief executive is elected by the legislature (that is, the student parliament). Instead of a fancy campaign, a written application and a speech followed by a thorough Q&A session give the electorate the information it needs to make a decision. Fewer people are involved in choosing who becomes president, but this process is not necessarily a less democratic one. Since the students elected the members of the parliament, the LMU system is just a form of representative, rather than direct, democracy.

Had Clark and Mayopoulos both resigned (as they’d promised) after being inaugurated, the UC would have subsequently, in effect, enacted the core features of the Munich model: the UC members themselves would have elected a President and Vice President. That Goffard, who has proven himself competent and effective, will become Vice President is at least a positive development. It remains to be seen whether Mayopoulous, who did not resign along with Clark and was inaugurated as President on December 8, will be more than a funny figurehead.

By modeling itself after the US political system, the UC gains the advantage of familiarity and provides training for students interested in public service. But, as I believe I’ve shown, the current system is seriously flawed. I am not positive that the UC should have the legislature elect the President and Vice President in 2014. But maybe the UC should make the change? After all, it could do worse.

Lukas R. C. Leucht ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, is a Visiting Undergraduate Student from the University of Munich.