On Oct. 23, the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) released the results of the online ratification for its fall General Assembly (GA). The online vote ratified two motions—one to rename SSMU’s Breakout Room, the other to build a rock climbing wall in the SSMU building. Compared to the disappointing voter turnout for the GA itself, which failed to maintain a quorum of 100 students, nearly 3,000 people voted in the online ratification, surpassing the required quorum of 10 per cent of the student body. By requiring approval from a much larger percentage of the student body, the online vote acts as a check on a forum potentially dominated by a small, impassioned group of students well-versed on a specific issue. The online vote has acheived this by making the vote easier and more accessible to students unable or unwilling to attend the Assembly.
At the same time, more could be done to make this form of participation more relevant and visible. While quorum was exceeded by three per cent, a remaining 87 per cent of students still did not participate in the online vote. The Tribune’s editorial board was split on the following question: does responsibility for ensuring greater participation rest on SSMU, or with the student body itself?
Point: Better participation must come from students
The online vote’s success proves that the GA reforms of President Josh Redel and the SSMU executive have come to fruition. Certainly there are always improvements to be made, but the fact is more than 13 per cent of undergraduate students voted online this year. In previous years, voting was limited to live participants at the GA. SSMU frequently struggles to attract even one per cent of the student body to attend in person for the whole evening.
The ratification’s success also shows that students respond to improvements in the voting process. Anyone who voted online knows that it took less than three minutes, and was easily accessible through the new SSMU GA website, which has information on the motions and legislative process.
The question is how much easier students need voting to be. SSMU, it seems, has done its part in encouraging those it represents to vote. While there could always be more publicity, more outreach, and more communication, the onus now lies with students to share their opinion, if they have one.
The truth is that most students do not have strong opinions about changing the name of the SSMU Breakout Room. And while a rock-climbing wall would certainly be an exciting addition, the issue is not likely to attract the attention of over 21,000 students. Perhaps this points to a problem in the kinds of motions presented at the SSMU GA, but as it stands, the GA merely reflects the initiatives of those willing enough to submit a motion.
Essentially, SSMU is the voice of the student body. It should not be their job to make students have a voice; their job is to make it easier for students to share their voice. Considering that students can now vote online, watch livestreams of the GA, express concerns to the GA “mood watcher,” learn about motions on the website, and do all of these things from their smart phones, it’s now time for students to participate in the dialogue. They have no reason not to.
Counterpoint: SSMU has more to do
While a seamless ratification is certainly a success for SSMU’s reforms to the GA, it is not enough. The online vote is a necessary but insufficient step in the right direction. Voter turnout of 13 per cent is an improvement, but it is not an accomplishment. The onus remains on SSMU to make these motions more visible and relevant to students.
This begins and ends with SSMU demonstrating motions’ relevance to students. Beyond a series of emails, the small percentage that voted did so without any other prompting by SSMU: there were no posters calling for participation, elucidating that a rock-climbing wall was at stake. The key to increasing student involvement is not only to clarify how a motion is submitted—which the SSMU’s website does—but to transcend each motion’s “whereas” clause to communicate to students what is really at stake.
A broader discussion needs to take place about why students should care about their student government. This discussion needs to come from SSMU, and not only because this is appropriate and within its purview as a group elected and funded by students. SSMU is the only group that is in the position to have this discussion; out of all of the groups on campus, SSMU has the funds, the reach, and the mandate to engage and represent all students.
In order to attract the remaining 87 per cent of the student body, SSMU’s first goal should be to facilitate participation from all groups on campus. This includes a more active role from the rest of the SSMU councillors, in particular faculty representatives, in directly engaging their own constituents in the voting process. It also includes fostering a culture of participation among first years—reaching out to residences and holding student government workshops, or allowing students to vote before grabbing dinner by setting up a station in residence lobbies.
It will always be incumbent upon student government to demonstrate why students ought to engage in student politics. SSMU built the GA, and SSMU uses the GA as one of its ways to pass motions. The student society derives legitimacy from the active and direct engagement of its constituents in such a forum. As such, it is SSMU’s job to continue to work towards a solution to the GA problem. We can complain about the lack of student engagement until we’re blue in the face, but that will change nothing—particularly as students most likely will not be listening.
