More Strategic Plans

For a short period last semester as elections took place, the Undergraduate Council occupied the foreground of campus discussion before it inevitably faded back into its regular obscurity. The election controversy called into question the sturdiness of the UC’s electoral mechanisms when allegations over a possible vote rigging engulfed the body in a fight to regain its composure. In response, the UC’s Election Reform Task Force recently endorsed 11 recommendations meant to improve election integrity by drastically increasing ballot security and redefining the Election Commission. However, the proposed reforms are excessive, and the UC should instead focus its attention and resources on programs that will more directly and beneficially impact student life on campus.

First, the suggestions put forth by the commission include new voting software that would require five of eight election “trustees” to enter an electronic password to access ballot results. Although the UC makes a solid effort to address concerns over corruption, these changes may ultimately do little to dispel students’ worries that elections are never impervious to manipulation. So long as there are computer science wonks, accusations of hacking will inevitably resurface in future elections. Besides, it bears mentioning that the allegations last semester were proven false, making this response seem like an overreaction that could ultimately have negative consequences if trustees resign or disagree with each other as happened this fall.

Second, the UC will offer a stipend to students who serve on the Election Commission. We strongly believe that the funds that the UC will direct toward improving software and paying students to serve on the Election Commission are better suited for initiatives that can serve more tangible benefits to Harvard students. As stated above, complete electoral reform is, in this case, virtually impossible. The UC should instead focus its energies on what it was intended to accomplish—namely, the improvement of student life—rather than waste resources and energy working to bolster its electoral arm.

That being said, we do understand the UC’s reasoning for wanting to increase stipends for students who serve on the Election Commission. Though we do not agree this is the best use of money, we still encourage students who care about the process to compete for these commission seats, as that will better safeguard future elections against insider maneuvering. It will also bring the UC closer to the students they represent, ultimately making it a more viable institution.

Though we take issue with the seemingly hyper-secure voting software changes to come, we commend the non-election proposals passed at the UC meeting for responding well to student demands. The establishment of the Crimson Forum is a good example of an idea that will benefit all of Harvard. Intended to be be an online discussion thread that is designed to incorporate all undergraduates into a single virtual community, it will allow students to share their thoughts on school-related issues. The UC has a specific niche to fill on campus—improving student life—and measures like the Crimson Forum are the best way to do so. The UC would be much better off devoting its resources to such programs, rather than wasting time, money, and resources making its elections needlessly secure.