I think your accusations about my intelligence and integrity have been adequately addressed in the comments section here. If Connor had my back here (I'm not even sure he agrees with me, but hell), this is the point where he would call you a dome unit and I would laugh.
But to the meat of your comment, which Chris kindly posted for you:
When you say that the Constitution will provide "a structured voice for alumni to air their issues and opinions to the Trustees," I hear "will encourage a bureaucratic power-grabbing tug-o-war between the Lone Piners and the current alumni 'leaders.'" I don't really see how this is a desirable outcome, but please let me know what the benefits of infuriating retired conservatives are. See, they have both time and resentment on their hands, and that's not something I would want to try to incite. Now, if you think you can win, well good for you. But even if you could, I'd still be against you because I don't think you can deliver a twentieth of what the College needs.
The point is, I don't feel like more structure is going to help the College address the areas that I believe are its problems. Do you think a representative body is really going to form a cohesive opinion about how to deal with sexual assault on campus? Or will it be able to come together to agree upon and then expound the merits of creating an Asian/Asian-American Studies Department or an independent Middle-Eastern Studies Department? Will it be able to formulate a program that improves student writing? All of that is far, far from likely. O sure, you could probably get enough of your representatives on board for things like recommending more funding be given to club sports. But seriously, what needs of the students do you find that your representative body will be able to meet?
Again, I assert that passionate alumni interested in a specific cause and working through student (or even faculty) groups is and will always be much more effective than trying to get some insular body of alums to first identify the actual problems on campus and then offer valuable suggestions to the Trustees, who will then try to order or cajole the administration into some (probably modified) course of action. When I went to the Asian-American Studies Conference this term, I overheard the keynote speaker Gary Okihiro (who has been enormously successful at setting up a number of incredible programs at both Cornell and Columbia) speaking to a Dartmouth alum about how to organize support for the current effort to form an Asian-American Studies department. Guess what, he didn't mention forming a "structured voice" representing all Dartmouth alums. That's a strategy guaranteed to induce stagnation, torpor, and ineffectuality.
As for the other point—the argument that Joe and The Review have been making about the changes to the petitioning process has nothing really to do with how many nominated candidates there are. The issue is that petition candidates must announce their candidacy before the Nominating Committe chooses their candidates, meaning the whole point of petitioning—reacting to a poor choice of candidates—is lost. That is a serious flaw, and although it seems right now that it is specifically designed with the Lone Pine Revolution in mind, it will equally affect anyone on the left who is championing a cause or causes that the Nominating Committee either ignores or opposes. Justice isn't always fairness (sorry, Rawlsians), but fairness is occasionally pragmatically better.