News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

News

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

News

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

News

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

News

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

THE DROPPING-OUT RULE.

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

EDITORS HERALD-CRIMSON :-Clause six of the '84 class election provides that "after every alternate formal ballot, viz., the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and c., the candidate having the smallest number of votes, and all others candidates having less than ten votes, shall be dropped."

To the writer, the rule seems inexpedient and unjust. It was undoubtedly made to prevent any chance of the meetings becoming inconveniently Jong. The '83 committee of arrangement proposed a similar rule, but by motion in the meeting the rule was thrown out. Subsequent events justified the action of the meeting. The secretary eventually elected would have been thrown out at the first had the meeting not amended the rules. Later in the evening the orator finally receiving the majority of votes would have been rejected by such a rule as the '84 committee propose. To prove that freedom of ballot need not work disadvantageously, I will state that '83's meeting was an hour and a half shorter than '82's, in which the shutout rule was adopted.

It is the right of every '84 man to vote, and it is also his right to have that vote counted without restriction. To limit the freedom of ballot is practically to take away the right of voting. '84.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags