The editorial espouses two contradictory views, both false. The attacks on Liston and the Undergraduate Council in general reflect a deep anti-U.C. cynicism that pervades The Crimson. Despite past wrongdoings, Liston has performed effectively as U.S. president so far, according to several U.C. members. Meetings are shorter and more efficient and numerous promising activities are in the planning stages.
Yet after wrongly attacking council members as incapable of choosing a competent leader, the editorial advocates giving greater legitimacy to the council through popular elections. Few on the staff, which often thinks it is the voice of Harvard, would truly want a council president to be seen as representing the views of all Harvard students.
Popular elections would be no guarantee of electing the "best" candidate for council president, i.e., the candidate endorsed by The Crimson. Instead, it would allow elections to be decided on the basis of name recognition and flashy posters. Council members know each candidate first hand from their interactions at meetings. It is their obligation to take the time to read the lengthy position papers and get to know the candidates. Members are therefore more apt to choose a good president than the student body, which has shown mostly apathy toward past elections.