Refuse to Vote

INFUSED with democratic fervor, the Undergraduate Council last week decided it was not fit to decide whether it should sponsor a spring concert by the Grateful Dead, and that the matter should be be taken directly to the people. So today, tomorrow and Wednesday, all students can vote on the question in their Houses--the first referendum on a council-related issue since the formation of the organization itself. They should, on principle, refuse to vote on the question.

Holding the referendum at all is an insult to the hundreds of undergraduates who paid $10 to fund a body elected to make such decisions for them. Governing by referenda is in general an unwieldy process, not only because it takes up time and money, but because it does not allow for technical debate or amendment. Open votes are justified mainly if constituents feel their government is not willing to act according to their wishes--such as the Nuclear Free Cambridge and Rent Control questions on the municipal ballot this fall. Hardly the case with the vote. If the council seriously wanted to gauge the will of the populace, they should have held a campus-wide balloting before the "Dead" plans firmed up, asking what group students would prefer. But the question as it stands, "Resolved, that the Council shall sponsor a concert in Harvard Stadium with the Grateful Dead" blurs several issues and hence botches any sort of democratic result. If the referendum fails, what does that mean? That students don't want the council to sponsor any band at all? That they want a council-sponsored concert, but not one they have to pay for? That they think a world-famous band would be great, but that the Dead are not as cool as the Rolling Stones or Elvis Costello? Whether the council will try and get another band if the referendum fails, and whether they will allow student input in that decision, are probably important considerations for many. Because students don't know how the council will react, they don't know how to vote.

We fear that the Council does not want to use the referendum to help make a decision, but to justify one already made. "If anything goes wrong with the concert, it takes the blame off us if we have student approval," argued Stuart A. Raphael '86 in the floor debate on whether to hold the referendum. Such logic flies in the face of responsible, representative government. Students should avoid the many traps hidden in the referendum by taking a ballot and, instead of marking yes or no, indicating that they feel the vote should not have been taken.