From Feb. 16 to Feb. 19, students voted in a Special Plebiscite concerning proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU). The vote was intended to gather feedback from students ahead of a Special Referendum later this semester, when the constitutional changes may be adopted.
According to certified results processed by Simply Voting, 1,482 students cast ballots, representing 6.2 per cent of 23,957 eligible voters.
The Tribune explains what the plebiscite asked, what the results were, and what happens next.
How is a plebiscite different from a referendum?
A plebiscite gathers student opinion but does not itself amend governing documents. In contrast, a referendum is binding and can formally change the Constitution if it meets quorum. The results of the Special Plebiscite may influence what appears on the Special Referendum ballot later this semester, but they do not mandate any specific revisions be made to the proposal.
Why was this plebiscite held?
While the vote itself will not amend the constitution, SSMU held the vote to consult the student body on potential changes before bringing them forward to the referendum.
The results of the plebiscite will help inform proposed amendments to the SSMU Constitution before a separate vote later this term. Students were able to consult a separate document outlining the full proposed amendments before voting.
Because changes to the constitution affect how SSMU governs itself, this preliminary vote served as an opportunity for students to voice their opinions on the current SSMU governance system before binding changes are made.
What was on the ballot?
The plebiscite included three questions related to governance and constitutional reform. First, it asked which of the Board of Directors (BoD), Legislative Council (LC), or Executive Committee should serve as SSMU’s highest governing authority. This question concerned SSMU’s inner hierarchy and which body should hold the most decision-making power within the organization.
A majority of participating voters selected the LC, which received 586 votes, or 51.1 per cent of ballots cast on the question. The BoD received 440 votes (38.4 per cent), while the Executive Committee received 121 votes (10.5 per cent). There were 335 abstentions on this question, representing 22.6 per cent of participants.
The next question on the ballot asked voters to rank their preferred quorum threshold for a student strike from the following options: 50 per cent, 40 per cent, 30 per cent, 20 per cent, or 15 per cent of the student body. Quorum determines the minimum level of student participation required for a strike vote to be valid. Thus, changing this threshold would significantly affect how student strikes are ratified.
Based on the ranked ballot points system, the 20 per cent quorum option received the highest number of points (4,114), followed closely by the 30 per cent option (4,050).
The 15 per cent option received 3,786 points, the 40 per cent option received 3,529 points, and the 50 per cent option received 2,998 points. There were 172 abstentions on this question, representing 11.6 per cent of voters.
The final question on the ballot was a call for open feedback on constitutional reform, allowing students to directly voice their opinions on changes to SSMU’s legislature.
What happens next?
The results of the plebiscite will be considered as constitutional reform proposals move forward. Students will have the opportunity to vote again when the amendments are presented in a Special Referendum.
Although turnout was relatively low at 6.2 per cent, the plebiscite offers a view of student opinion on key governance questions. The upcoming Special Referendum will ultimately determine whether these preferences influence constitutional change.
