For the past few months, A.S. President Harry Khanna and a cadre of supporters have been pushing for a substantial revamp of the A.S. consitution.

Many of the changes are simple clean-up jobs. For example, the new constitution does away with the clumsy guiding principles of the old version, reducing them to a clearer mission statement. The new charter also clarifies when council terms begin, the manner of succession during a presidential vacancy, the language governing the annual executive budget and the conditions under which a councilmember may be dismissed. These modifications are much-needed revamps to the current constitution, which is rife with vagaries and inconsistencies.

Other changes are meatier. The A.S. president’s ability to call the judicial board to review an action of the A.S. Council is removed in the new constitution, a welcome change that would prevent the president from using the judicial board to harass opponents or even prevent them from voting.

Also struck from the new version is the president’s power of veto. Khanna has argued that a presidential veto is impractical in student government — especially since the president would have voting power on the council. But the presidential veto is the only thing keeping councilmembers from logrolling items onto the final budget, reducing the need for compromise. The student government would be better served by a nonvoting president with full veto powers.

But the loss of the veto is a relatively minor concern; the biggest changes to the constitution alter the makeup of the council and the way some cabinet members are chosen.

Instead of electing a myriad of vice presidents and commissioners to the A.S. cabinet as they do now, students would vote for the A.S. president and only three officers: a senior vice president of student life, a vice president of external affairs and a vice president of finance and resources. These officers would in turn appoint assistant vice presidents to positions mimicking those of the current commissioners.

With only four officers on the ballot, it would be much easier for voters to focus their attention on a smaller number of significant races. More importantly, the change would allow for the appointment of the most capable cabinet possible, rather than the most popular one. And requiring cabinet members to report directly to a supervisor would be a great improvement over the current system, in which commissioners operate with very little accountability for their actions.

Perhaps the most contentious proposal is the restructuring of the A.S. Council senate. Under the new constitution, there would be only two senators from each college; one senator from each academic division (five in all), elected by undergraduate students in majors within that division; and eight at-large senators, chosen by the entire campus.

Khanna’s assertion that students identify more strongly with their academic division than they do with their college is arbitrary at best, made without a thorough campuswide survey. And while college councils would lose some sway, their main focus should be the betterment of their individual colleges, while it is the A.S. Council’s duty to improve UCSD as a whole. More importantly, students would be well-represented under the proposed system, one way or another. All students will be guaranteed representatives from both their college and academic division; freshmen and transfer students have dedicated senators; and at-large candidates would be free to run platforms that appeal directly to student organizations. In short, there’s something for everybody.

To amend the A.S. constitution, Khanna had two options: either call for a special election requiring a “yes” vote from two-thirds of the A.S. Council and the student body; or seek ratification from three-fourths of the A.S. Council and three-fifths of the college councils. He has pursued the latter thus far, but a studentwide referendum would give the revamp a dose of legitimacy.

Overall, Khanna’s recommended changes to the A.S. constitution are well-reasoned, and should make the student government more responsive and productive. The new election setup should ensure that all students are represented, no matter what group they identify with. Both of these things ought to encourage greater student engagement with their government.

The Earl Warren College Council has already voted in favor of the new constitution. It’s up to the other five councils to do the same — even if it amounts to voting away their own power.