When 'Yes' Means 'No'

To the Editors of The Crimson:

When does "no" really mean "yes?" Quite possibly, it does in the current constitution balloting. The constitutional convention has developed an election scheme that could potentially penalize a "no" voter by having his vote put the constitution over the top.

The problem is simple. For the constitution to be approved, two things must happen: at least 50 percent of the students must vote, and at least two-thirds of those voting must vote "yes." But suppose 40 percent of the undergraduates vote "yes," 20 percent vote "no," and 40 percent don't vote. Then the constitution would pass. Yet had the dissenters abstained instead, the constitution would have been rejected since fewer than half the students would have voted. And there seems a good chance this hypothetical situation will become a reality.

The results of this election should only stand if, even pretending that all "no" voters had abstained the constitution would have passed anyway. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Third World Alliance and the GSA, in urging their members to reject the constitution, actually helped it pass? Having a "no" vote count as a "yes" is obviously undemocratic. In any future elections, I would recommend dropping any minimum voting clause--anyone too apathetic to vote deserves whatever he gets--and just require a straight majority or straight two-thirds majority. Tim McGuire '83