Student democracy is a fundamental principle of the MSU, but as participation falters, what can we do to re-centre it in student life?

Election turnout is a yearly topic of discussion at the Silhouette and throughout the MSU, whether there excitement at high participation, or more frequently worry over student disinterest.

The 2024 McMaster Students Union presidential election saw a 56 per cent increase in voter turnout from 2023, something re-elected MSU President Jovan Popovic saw as a testament to the MSU’s increasing connection with students coming out of the pandemic. But while this increase in turnout is important, it misses the reality that the MSU has been in a crisis of democratic disengagement for years.

The introduction of electronic voting to MSU elections in 2010 saw student participation jump from nine per cent to 22 per cent in one year. Over the next 7 years, turnout continued on an upward trend, remaining for 5 years at over 40 per cent until its sudden 13 per cent drop in 2018. From then on, presidential elections have continued to see disappointingly low voter turnout and overall engagement in student politics, including the acclamation of a president in 2021 when only one candidate ran.

Even last year’s rebound hides ongoing struggles. 2024’s MSU General Assembly saw a 50 per cent decline in attendance since 2023, from ten to five members present, more than 750 people shy of quorum each time. This not only means that the General Assembly’s resolutions are non-binding, but that it also fails to effectively inform the Student Representative Assembly of student opinion.

The difference between presidential election turnout and participation in the other facets of student democracy illustrates students’ complex relationship with the MSU and its president. The well publicized presidential race, with platforms full of often detailed and/or ambitious promises, attracts participation perhaps because it seems to be the easiest and highest impact way to have your voice heard in the MSU.

The well publicized presidential race, with platforms full of typically detailed and/or ambitious promises, attracts participation perhaps because it seems to be the easiest and highest impact way to have your voice heard in the MSU.

The presidential election is democracy at work without the complex procedure of the SRA, the referendum process, or the General Assembly. These procedures exist for a reason but they have to be balanced with creating a democratic spirit among students.

There is one exception to the recent democratic decline of the MSU, and that is 2024’s bike share referendum, which saw what was for a referendum tremendous turnout. In a year when the only other referendum, the Food Accessibility Initiative, failed to gain enough votes to meet quorum, the bike share referendum passed with tremendous support.

The bike share campaign was a long and very public one, with student activists pushing the measure through at every step of the referendum process. The referendum’s supporters had over a year to promote their position on the referendum.

The MSU’s election rules limit campaigning to a set period prior to referenda, to ensure fairness. McMaster bike share was able to work around this because the process of gathering signatures — which the bike share needed as a student initiated referendum — did not violate the campaigning rules. Without this extra campaign period the bike share referendum might not have succeeded in getting the necessary 10 per cent voter turnout for a referendum to be valid.

The alternative however, was demonstrated in the failure of the Food Security Initiative, initiated by President Popovic. Campaigning was limited to a brief period prior to the referendum and without ample time to inform and excite students, not enough turned out.

While the strict campaign period makes sense for the election of student representatives, as it is important that those elections be competitive and that each candidate be given a fair chance, referenda are not competitions. Limiting elected representatives' allowed time to communicate with their constituents for or against a referendum is not an effective way to encourage student democracy.

Simply informing students of a referendum shortly before the voting period without much opportunity to inspire them to take action appears to be an ineffective way of increasing political participation. If our best examples of democratic culture rely on motivating students through positive messaging — whether that be the platforms of promising presidential candidates or the potential benefits of passing a referendum — it may be time to reconsider how we allow students to be informed about their student union's initiatives.

Students need more freedom to actively and effectively participate in their student government on their often limited schedule. Empowering students and our political representatives to promote their initiatives actively will empower student democracy.

Having the lowest voter turnout of any age group, Canadian university students need to embrace their civic duty and utilize their right to vote

By: Zarah Rahman, Opinion Contributor

Every four years, Canadian students huddle around laptops, like watching a reality show, as news anchors crack down on maps filled with red or blue as the results of the American election come in.

At McMaster, US politics has great engagement - a panel event discussing the November 5th election nearly sold out to 500 attendees, both online and in-person. But do we have this same energy for our own local and federal politics?

Canadian youth aged 18-30 has an alarmingly lower voter engagement compared to other age groups. One survey by the Canadian government found that youth voter turnout was 14 per cent lower than those aged 47 years or older during the 2019 federal election.

Many factors may contribute to this, like variable civic education. As a Toronto District School Board student, I have participated in Student Vote since elementary school and was taught how to research political campaigns. These classroom lessons helped me understand how to make the important decision on who to vote for, which encouraged me to vote for all elections that I was eligible for.

However, after a conversation with my friends, I found that those who did not have this education may face greater difficulty navigating confusing political campaigns and races. A survey by Civix Canada found that two-thirds of Canada’s youth report teaching civic education not being a priority at their schools. Individuals who do not learn about how how government institutions work are less likely to vote.

Another barrier may be the accessibility to voting services. In 2021, the Canadian Vote on Campus program was suspended for the 44th general election due to COVID-19 and the snap-election call, limiting many post-secondary students from an accessible polling station.

The program allowed students to vote for either their home riding or for the riding of their university. This program enabled students not able to visit home to vote strategically.

When coming to university, we meet people from various educational backgrounds. This is why we have many introductory courses to make sure all students receive essential foundational knowledge. I think this should also be the case for civic education within McMaster, which has thousands of eligible student voters.

One model to implement this could follow that of the CONSENT 1A00: It Takes All Of Us offered by the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Office, which auto-enrolls McMaster first-years to spread awareness on sexual violence. On a larger scale, McMaster could work towards increasing on-campus awareness of voting stations and resources for voters. This could also mean encouraging Elections Canada to bring back the Vote on Campus initiative.

On a personal level, we need to reflect on our civic duties. When facing uncertainty about who we should vote for or how our electoral politics even function, we could utilize tools, such as VoteCompass, to help us understand our political alignment and find our places in the political sphere. Discussions with friends and family could also help us understand diverse perspectives while also encouraging our circles to vote.

Politics impacts all aspects of student life. From your city’s local climate response, to the province’s OSAP policies and the Federal Government’s pharmacare pilot, we have the power to influence change with our vote. With the possibility of elections both federally and provincially occurring within the next year, this rings true now more than ever.

Politics impacts all aspects of student life . . . we have the power to influence change with our vote.

We know the power of paper with our degrees - but we can also see this power reflected on the ballot. With these upcoming Canadian elections, as students we should all contribute to increasing the currently sad voter turnout of our age range and embrace our civic duty as citizens of a democracy.

This year, voter turnout for non-residence-specific positions on the McMaster Students Union First Year Council sat at approximately 23 percent, with approximately 1,147 students of the 5,000 potential voters participating in the election.

Turnout rates for first-year faculty representative positions were also low, with the majority of first year students not casting their vote. For instance, while voter turnout for niche programs such as arts and science sat at 35 percent, larger programs such as the McMaster Humanities Society only achieved a 4.8 percent turnout.

A lack of student participation in the MSU continues to be a pressing problem.

At last year’s General Assembly, which took place in March 2017 and was specifically designed to amplify McMaster students’ voices, only 16 voters registered. In the wake of the notably low voter turnout, Kathleen Quinn, former Student Representative Assembly (social sciences) member, put forward a motion to hold a general meeting aimed at increasing participation in the MSU from the start of the year.

Although the motion initially passed, it was knocked down at the SRA meeting on Sept. 10, when 12 SRA members voted in favour of the motion, but 18 voted it down.

Ryan Deshpande, MSU vice president (Education), opposed the motion on the grounds that the meeting would be poorly attended if it was held in September. Max Lightstone, caucus leader (engineering), however, noted that engineering holds a semi-annual general meeting that achieves a high attendance.

After the discussion fizzled out, Chukky Ibe, MSU President, concluded that the best plan moving forward would entail hosting an MSU open house and town hall.

Under the status quo, the MSU employs other strategies to increase voter turnouts in first year elections.

In particular, each year, the MSU allots a generous amount of time to prompting the department during Welcome Week. The MSU also raises awareness by working with FYC Coordinator Hazra Chowdhury and being present at Clubsfest.

In addition, the MSU hosts events, spearheads MSU Wants You campaigns aimed at ameliorating MSU engagement amongst outreach groups that are traditionally less inclined to get involved, and partners with MSU Spark, FYC and Residence Life.

One event that the MSU hosted this year, Elections 1A03, consisted of a workshop and question and answer session aimed at informing first year students about elections and MSU involvement.

However, the Elections 1A03 event was not particularly accessible, being held at Mohawk College, not McMaster University. The event garnered only 58 signs-ups on its Facebook page.

Chloe Deraiche, MSU Chief Returning Officer, notes that, in spite of the apparent voter apathy, the MSU has achieved comparatively high voter turnout rates. In particular, McMaster has one of the highest voter turnouts for student elections in Ontario, sitting at around 40 percent.

“This is remarkably strong for a school of our size and leads me to believe the civic engagement at McMaster is exceptionally robust,” said Deraiche. “I think this is something that we are doing extremely well and should be proud of as a school. The Elections Department will strive to continue this excellent work.”

Continuing promotion work and increasing the accessibility of events promise to ignite more interest in student governance.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Last week, the majority of students who casted ballots voted against adopting any of the potential MSU healthcare plan add-ons. The failure of all three referendum options is incredibly disappointing and disheartening. The add-ons were, in short, an incredible deal for students. For very low prices (a total of 77 dollars), they would cover most of the costs of vision care, prescription contraception and a variety of other medical services.

The last two add-ons could have been viewed by some students as “controversial,” however I find it hard to believe that the average student voter does not understand the impact of vision coverage on someone’s health, performance, and success.

This tells me that this was a decision made by an uninformed student vote. I think, in this case, the combination of lack of communication from the MSU, voter apathy, and some other factors are to blame. Of course, there is only so much the MSU can do to engage students if they are not willing to participate in the exchange of information. But there were several shortcomings of the MSU in this process that have to be discussed.

Although it is not the responsibility of the MSU to actively campaign for a side of a referendum, it is the job of the MSU to accurately communicate important information to students. David Campbell told the Silhouette last week that “doing more to communicate what we do” is one of the MSU President’s main priorities throughout the year. I will not deny that the MSU effectively reached out to students about the existence of referendum questions on the presidential ballot, however it did not communicate to students the substance of these questions. The weeks before the election period saw various instances of poorly and often inaccurately communicated information.

Additionally, the proposed HSR questions were often presented in a positive light, covered in at least two stories by the Silhouette, and shared with enthusiasm on an HSR referendum video posted on the MSU's website. The health care video that was posted, on the other hand, used neutral language and expressions.

The issue wasn’t solely the MSU’s lack of communication. Even an engaged student willing to learn more about the referendum questions would have hit a brick wall upon arriving on the MSU website’s referendum page. The information provided in the section is limited to the questions that were going to be included in the ballot. In the case of the HSR referendum, the proposed changes were self-explanatory, but the same was not the case for the health care questions. In addition to using the terms “oral” and “prescription” contraceptives interchangeably, information was lacking on the third option. The extent of the coverage offered was not adequately explained and some of the wording was ambiguous. Documents outlining the potential plans in detail and the implications of their implementation didn’t exist, and even the explanations for the plans in the existing questions appeared incomplete.

There is a difference between promoting one side of the referendum and providing the student body with substantial information on the issue. Much more could have been done to inform the students. Providing us with health plan comparisons, explanations, and engaging graphics are just a few possibilities.

Another source of confusion could have been the students’ ability to opt-out of the plan if these options were passed. As it currently states on the MSU website, students can only opt-out if they have “comparable” coverage. Once again, the wording is vague, leads to misinformation, and no explanation of how the implementation of the add-on would affect students’ ability to opt-out was provided.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the MSU alone is to blame for the failure of the health care referendum. Despite having the highest voter turnout so far, we’re still at only 40.5% of the student membership population.

It is very likely that many students did not think beyond their own health care insurance when answering the question. A student covered under their family’s insurance, could have seen the add-ons as entirely useless to their own well-being.

Seeing as the majority of the students were motivated to cast of ballot so they could vote for a presidential candidate, it’s also important to examine how the candidates talked about the health care referendum.

Several candidates said that they supported most or all of the add-ons, while a few held that students could make their own decisions. None of the candidates promoted or discussed the health care referendum as much as they could have. I think the lack of promotion from the candidates is also partially responsible for the outcome of this year’s referendum. Yes, the students can make their own decision, but that’s assuming that the students are informed.

The MSU could have done much more to promote this referendum and educate students. The candidates, too, should have taken more proactive roles.

This plan could have been a great opportunity for low-income students and those without coverage.

Many students are disappointed with the outcome, and rather than denying them the option to make an educated decision, I think the MSU should consider bringing the questions to the SRA and the student body for a vote again.

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2025 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu