Last week's election on amendments to the Student Union Constitution was problematic in the way it represented information about proposed changes. The election took place last Thursday and involved a number of amendments to the Union constitution developed by this year's quadrennial Constitutional Review Committee. Voting options not only listed arguments for and against the amendments under consideration on the ballot but unfairly listed several arguments against some amendments but not others.

The amendment calling for the securing of Student Sexuality Information Service, which passed, only listed arguments in favor of the amendment.

The amendment calling for the securing of Students for Environmental Action listed arguments both for and against that club being secured-and the amendment did not pass.

While this editorial board does not suggest that the failure of the SEA amendment is exclusively based on the presence of arguments against its passing on the voting ballot, it is evident that the amendment was not fairly presented.

It is commonly accepted that it is improper for candidates or their supporters to campaign at poll sites; this practice is prohibited by law in governmental elections in the United States. In the case of last Thursday's election, however, the Student Union, and not the representatives of SSIS and SEA, unfairly campaigned for and against those clubs.

The voting ballot was also an inappropriate place for decisions about securing clubs.

Although all students were given the opportunity to participate in the election, fewer than 300 students voted, and voters' support for securing SSIS and SEA does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the student body in general. Instead, the Union should have presented these proposals separately in another open forum or a blog, for example.

This is not to mention the user-unfriendliness of Thursday's election. Minutes after the polls opened at midnight on Thursday morning, Union President Andy Hogan '11 sent an e-mail to students explaining exactly how to use the online ballot. The e-mail presented the entire list of amendments as a massive hyperlink, leading to a second landing page from which students could vote. Students should not need additional help voting in an online election, and the e-mail instructions might actually have served to confuse students.

The Student Union has contracted out its election system to BigPulse, an online voting software company, since the beginning of 2007, and complaints have followed ever since. The passing of an amendment in favor of Instant Runoff Voting will most likely see the demise of the current software, which cost $2,464 this year in subscription fees.

The current configuration does not allow voters to rank choices, which is central to IRV's functioning.

We hope that the development of a new online voting system will correct technical and administrative errors in the future.