To the Editor:
The contention that the current mode of nomination and election "splits" the vote in trustee races has never been proved ("Elections could seal fate of AoA suit," April 28). In an approval voting system, the voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish -- hence there is no "splitting." Mr. Smith was named on a majority of the ballots; no other candidate in his race was. (I have been informed that the same was true in the Rodgers race, but I do not have the figures available.) It should also be noted that the approval system was instituted, not by those who have supported petition candidates, but by the Alumni Council and other "insiders" who chose this as a way to defeat the vote-splitting they blamed for the election of John Steel.
Once again, reporting on this election has served to divert attention from the central issue: the maintenance of parity, to which one party is pledged and the other party not only is not but has, at its head, John Mathias, who has explicitly opposed it.
As the legal liaison for the Executive Committee, I strenuously object to the claim that there is a chance the lawsuit defending parity could continue if the pro-parity slate is defeated. The only action available to alumni who favor parity is to vote for the pro-parity slate.
Frank Gado '58
White River Junction, VT
