News
Progressive Labor Party Organizes Solidarity March With Harvard Yard Encampment
News
Encampment Protesters Briefly Raise 3 Palestinian Flags Over Harvard Yard
News
Mayor Wu Cancels Harvard Event After Affinity Groups Withdraw Over Emerson Encampment Police Response
News
Harvard Yard To Remain Indefinitely Closed Amid Encampment
News
HUPD Chief Says Harvard Yard Encampment is Peaceful, Defends Students’ Right to Protest
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
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.