Students’ Society of McGill University
Association étudiante de l’Université McGill
Electoral Reform CommitteeArts Representative Adam Templer
Report of the Electoral Reform Committee
Submitted April 7th 2016
INTRODUCTION
At the November 19th, 2015 meeting of the Legislative Council, the creation of an ad-hoc Electoral Reform Committee, hereafter referred to as the Committee, was proposed for the following purpose[1]:
- Review and evaluate the current procedures for SSMU elections and identify areas for reform;
- Investigate ways in which to adjust the internal structure of Elections SSMU to facilitate faster response to issues during the election period;
- Conduct consultation from the student body on desired changes to the current electoral format;
- Propose alternative electoral structures that aim to improve the functionality of elections and reduce the personal nature of campaigning;
- Spearhead the writing of new internal regulations governing elections in collaboration with the Ad-Hoc Internal Regulation Review Committee;
A major goal of the Committee was to change the atmosphere of SSMU elections in response to concerns and issues raised by members-at-large which were suggested to contribute to low voter turnout, the general lack of contested positions among SSMU Executive positions, as well as the negative, hostile conduct of many elections in recent memory.
Committee Membership:
Adam Templer, Arts Representative, Chair
Zacheriah Houston, Vice-President (Finance & Operations), Advisory
Kimber Bialik, Vice-President (Clubs and Services), Advisory
Chloe Rourke, Vice-President (University Affairs), Advisory
Emily Boytinck, Vice-President (External), Advisory
Omar El-Sharawy, Vice President (Internal), Advisory
Kareem Ibrahim, President, Advisory [Until Resignation 7 February 2016]
Becky Goldberg, Arts Representative [Until Resignation 7 February 2016]
Gabriel Ning, Arts Representative
Lexi Michaud, Arts Representative
Joshua Chin, Medicine Representative
Matthew Satterthwaite, Arts & Science Representative [Until Removal April 3 2016]
Stephanie Feldman, IRRC* [Until Removal April 6 2016]
Alexei Simakov, Member-at-Large
Ellen Chen, Member-at-Large
Emma Sutherland, Member-at-Large
Eric Taylor, Member-at-Large
Natalie DelRossi, Member-at-Large
Jit Kanetkar, Member-at-Large [Until Removal 7 February 2016]
Igor Sadikov, Member-at-Large [From 4 March 2016]
The Committee met on January 11 2016, on January 24 2016, on January 31 2016, on February 7 2016, on February 14 2016, on February 21 2016, on March 13 2016, on March 20 2016, and on April 3 2016.
The Committee met with former SSMU Elections CEO Geoffrey Nicholson on February 7 2016.
Committee Chair Templer met with SSMU Elections CEO Cameron McKeich on April 6 2016.
The Committee held a Town Hall for student feedback on April 6 2016.
* Scheduling conflicts meant that Committee Chair Templer was only able to meet with the Internal Regulations Review Commissioner on January 27 2016.
SSMU ELECTIONS
SSMU Elections have a long, and often difficult history. Legislative Council first considered moving Elections online in the 1997-98 Academic Year where the proposal was ultimately rejected.[2] Fears were raised that students would not consider issues properly if voting was more easily accessible, and available quickly, simply and anywhere without a paper ballot. Further fears were regarding the security of the electoral process.
That year also saw the imposition of a 1,000 poster limit during campaigning and a reduction of the candidate budget from $300 to $150.[3] This was in response to candidates posting approximately 8,000 posters during the electoral period.[4]
In the 1999-2000 academic year, disputes over the split of a Coca-Cola agreement that would have brought the SSMU app. $5 million was sent to referendum after significant controversy. This referendum saw an incredible 56.4% voter turnout.[5] It also highlighted significant issues in the electoral process including the involvement of external, third parties, as well as the limited powers of Elections SSMU to address rules violations, and raised concerns about SSMU Executives not being able to campaign on referendum questions while in office.[6]
In 2001, Council refused to institute a slate electoralsystem.[7] Despite this, a Progressive Students Coalition was formed to support and elect certain candidates. Although drawing on support from the Black Student’s Network, Queer McGill and the Women’s Union, this coalition fails to elect many of its candidates and dissolves by 2005.Online voting was finally instituted in 2003 and saw an immediate increase in voter turnout, and a reduction of electoral costs.[8]
The election for the 2007-08 was also subject to significant controversy. After a petition filed to the JudicialBoard by Presidential candidate Floh Herra-Vega regarding inaction over the failure of the Elections CEO to issue a censure for the unlawful removal of about 100 out of 450 campaign posters, the election was invalidated. The Judicial Board called for a by-election to confirm the results of the election. Despite the invalidation of his original victory, President Itzkowitz was elected to serve for the 2007-2008 period.[9]
Issues continue in recent memory. Multiple Presidential candidates were censured in the Winter 2010 Election, and accusations of racism and an instance of physical violence against a candidate at Gerts was reported.[10]By 2011, it was noted that candidates were becoming increasingly uncontested. At that point, about 25% of all SSMU Executive positions had been filled by acclaimed candidates.[11]Since the publishing of that article, this issue has gotten worse. In the Winter 2014, four of six positions were contested. In the Winter 2015 election, two positions were contested and one had no candidate. In the most recent election, Winter 2016 only two positions were contested, although notably there is a seventh Executive position.
Between the 2013 and 2014 Winter Elections, voter turnout hovered around 30%[12][13][14]. The 2014 election was subject to significant controversy. The election of Presidential candidate Tariq Khan by 78 votes was invalidated due to a result of multiple bylaw infractions, and Presidential candidate Courtney Ayukawa was named President as a result.[15] This decision was first appealed to the Jusdicial Board and upheld, at which point Tariq Khan filed a legal case with the Quebec Superior Court. The case was dropped October 9 2015.[16] The controversy prompted the move to the preferential ballot for SSMU Elections, and raised calls for a legal review of the Internal Regulations regarding elections and referenda. The controversy also resulted in significant disillusionment in the student body with Elections SSMU as an institution, and arguably the SSMU itself.[17]
The following election saw a 5% drop in voter turnout from 31.4% to 25.9%.[18] This is equivalent to over 1,000 students not voting in the election. The SSMU Election of Winter 2015 was also subject to controversy through online campaigning, allegations of libel, censures issued to both Presidential candidates, and the filing of a Judicial Board petition.[19] A second Judicial Board petition was filed against Vice-President (Internal) candidate Lola Baraldi by her opponent, Johanna Nikoletos.
The resignation of Lola Baraldi in Fall 2015 also triggered an election marred by controversy. Vice-President (Internal) candidate Celeste Pagniello withdrew her candidacy after she claimed personal attacks, and threats of violence had been levelled against herself and her family.[20] This came after allegations of both her blocking individuals from interacting with her campaign, and the use of false identities to fight back against such claims.
Vice-President (Internal) candidate Simakov later confirmed his campaign team was behind the allegations, but there was no link reported between his campaign and the threats against Celeste.[21] Simakov continued in the election unopposed, and was then rejected by the membership with a ‘No’ vote triggering an immediate by-election. The original election of a replacement Vice-President (Internal) had a low voter turnout of 16.7%. The follow up by-election had a turnout of only 8.7%.[22]
The SSMU Electoral process was, by now, recognized as facing a number of significant issues. This is largely derived from the culture of the electoral process on campus, as well as the history of negative incidents, questionable practices and hostile campaign strategies. The need to act was clear, and on November 19 2015, Council approved a motion calling for an ad-hoc Electoral Reform Committee. Even so, calls for a reform of the electoral process continued.
In an Editorial dated November 17 2015, the McGill Tribune wrote that:
“SSMU elections have reached a breaking point. It is no longer sustainable for candidates to take part in or be subject to such an intensely negative online culture. While increasing student interest in the short term, online turmoil only serves to further alienate the student body in the long run. Currently, Elections SSMU, which has some control over the candidates insofar as the bylaws mandate, is not equipped to handle the challenges of such a culture; thus, the incentives for both candidates and the electorate who participates in these tactics must be adjusted in order to discourage a negative electoral culture.”[23]
Another article, dated November 25 2015 echoed those statements from a student:
“Two weeks ago the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) bylection for Vice-President (VP) Internal turned ugly… again. SSMU elections have been a source of controversy for years with the most recent one marred by a particularly malicious online culture. While much of the student body is generally disenchanted and uninterested in SSMU, the election drama habitually pulls many into the fray. Upon seeing the spectacle that each of the campaign pages had become, many students did not care which candidate was right or how they justified themselves, and decided that they did not want anyone who engaged in that sort of behaviour to represent them. In future elections, in order to prevent election issues from being overshadowed by vicious Facebook campaign pages and Reddit threads, candidates’ use of social media should be limited.”[24]
On December 8 2015, another article called for Electoral Reform – this time from former candidate Alexei Simakov:
“Of the many problems afflicting the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) today, the most pressing is a broken electoral system. Much attention has been focused on the “intensely negative online culture,” and suggestions such as vesting the Chief Electoral Officer with greater powers or limiting use of social media by candidates have been proposed as solutions—but this is just a symptom of the deeper problems. One is voter turnout, which in in the last election was a depressing 8.7 per cent of eligible students. The other is the outcome, which regularly produces an executive with fairly homogenized views that are perceived to represent the same faction at the expense of other demographics. Candidates are increasingly forced to campaign not for the entire student body, but for the small minority that bothers to vote.”[25]
The current Internal Regulations of Elections and Referenda was approved on January 1 2016, when it was moved out of the Internal Regulations of the Presidential Portfolio. Those Internal Regulations were created by Council on January 15 2015, and amended on April 9 2015 later that academic year. The removal of the Elections and Referenda IRs also coincided with further amendments to the Presidential Portfolio on January 14 2016.
Through the course of nine meetings, the Ad-Hoc Electoral Reform Committee drafted a series of proposed amendments to the Internal Regulations of Elections and Referenda. These meetings were open to the public, and a Town Hall for further consultation was scheduled for April 6 2016. Additional meetings between Committee Chair Templer and both the SSMU Internal Regulation Review Commissioner and Elections CEO Cameron McKeich, as well as between the Committee and former Elections CEO Nicholson were carried out.
PROCEDURE
COUNCILLOR SELECTION
Councillors volunteered for the Committee during SSMU Legislative Council November 19 2015 upon the approval of the Motion. Originally, fewer Councillor seats were proposed however the number was increased to accommodate all those interested in contributing to the work of the Committee. All Executives were involved as advisory members of the Committee.
Due to the size of the Committee, in the event of resignation by a Councillor or Executive, those seats were not filled.
MEMBER-AT-LARGE SELECTION
Members-at-Large were selected from an application process. Despite advertisement in both the AUS and SSMU listserv, and additionally on social media, there was not an excess of applicants beyond the available positions. All applicants were accepted.
In March the position left vacant from the removal of Jit Kanetkar was filled by Igor Sadikov who contacted Committee Chair Templer about the position.
COMMITTEE CHAIR SELECTION
The Committee Chair was elected from within the Committee. Arts Representative Templer was the sole applicant, and was confirmed in a formal vote by the Committee.
CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
Meetings were conducted largely informally in order to develop ideas for reform through conversation. Generally, the Committee operated by consensus, however a few notable exceptions were voted upon. These are noted in the appropriate section under ‘Issues Raised for Examination.’
Committee members were removed after two unexcused absences. This did not apply to Executives, as they were advisory.
Committee members dissenting on issues are noted after recommendations, and have been given the opportunity to explain their reasoning to Council.
ISSUES RAISED FOR EXAMINATION
VOTER TURNOUT
* Note that those results marked with an asterisk are either not available in the original documents uploaded by Elections SSMU. To see the source for these data sets, check here[26].
Data provided online by Elections SSMU only dates back to 2004.
The Winter 2004 Elections saw a turnout of 19.9% of the electorate.[27]
The Winter 2005 Elections saw a turnout of29.8% of the electorate. *
The Winter 2006 Elections saw a turnout of 29.8% of the electorate.[28]
The Winter 2007 Elections saw a turnout of 31.9% of the electorate.[29]
The Winter 2008 Elections saw a turnout of 30.9% of the electorate.[30] *
The Winter 2009 Elections saw a turnout of 18.2% of the electorate.[31] *
The Winter 2010 Elections saw a turnout of 28% of the electorate. [32]
The Winter 2011 Elections saw a turnout of 21%. *
The Winter 2012 Elections saw a turnout of 29.1%. *
The Winter 2013 Elections saw a turnout of 29.1% of the electorate.[33]
The Winter 2014 Elections saw a turnout of 31.4% of the electorate.[34]
The Winter 2015 Elections saw a turnout of 25.9% of the electorate.[35]
The Winter 2016 Elections saw a turnout of 17. 5% of the electorate.[36]
See Appendix A for a visual representation of voter turnout from available data.
From the data available, the most recent Winter 2016 Elections not only saw the lowest voter turnout on record since the implementation of the Online Voting System, but also saw the continuation of significant decreases in voter turnout. This is even compared to the downturn in 2009 and in 2011 which were singular decreases of a significant margin.
In part, the Committee has recommended the return of a Polling Station to be set up on campus in order to rectify this issue. Voting at this station will be conducted online, with the necessary electronic equipment to be provided on location by Elections SSMU.
It should be noted that Elections SSMU felt a polling station did not contribute significantly to voter turnout in the Winter 2006 Election,[37] and that the removal of polling stations in the Winter 2007 Election[38] was not deemed to have an impact. As these polling stations were conducted through paper ballot at the time, it is difficult to anticipate if setting up an online polling station will be similarly negligible.
The Committee has included a mandate for an electronic polling station in its proposed amendments to Council.
The Committee is also in favour of mandating Elections SSMU to perform a ‘Get Out the Vote Campaign’ through physical means, such as postering and classroom announcements, to encourage voter turnout without it being affiliated with a candidate. This should be included in the ‘Elections Guidebook’ discussed later in this report.
Elections SSMU suggested that it receive funding to purchase advertisements for the ballot on social media, and in campus print media. It was also suggested that efforts to increase voter turnout be handled by the position of the Elections Coordinator. The Elections CEO also expressed his belief that SSMU Executives should be free to promote voting in an electorate ballot – but that they should remain neutral and not promote candidates in any effort to increase voter turnout.
The Elections CEO also noted that the low turnout in elections this year could be due to voter fatigue from the number of elections, referendum periods, and general assembly ratification votes. It was also suggested that low voter turnout is directly related to the low number of candidates in recent elections. A lack of candidates results in less student engagement, and the lack of candidates is tied to the controversies and lack of confidence that has marred SSMU elections in recent years.
SLATE CANDIDACY
The Committee considered the issue of Slate Candidacy multiple times during the course of this year. This issue has been considered several times previously by Council which voted, for instance, in 2001 not to permit such activity.[39]
The Committee notes that campaigning is difficult and that slate campaigning could result in a distributed workload, lessening the burden on candidates standing for election. However it was also felt that this would increase the influence and pressure which the political leanings of candidates had on the results of elections. Further it would decrease the accessibility of elections, and exclude those from outside of the slates. In other schools, such as the University of Toronto and Concordia, slates have had an entrenching effect. They often succeed one another, grooming candidates to take over for the next year, while also leading to intimidation of those elected from outside the dominant slate. Members of the dominant, elected slate will sometimes harass those candidates of the opposition in order to force their resignation.
Members of the Committee noted that slates informally operate in the current electoral system, with candidates working together behind the scenes and the electorate largely unaware of their cooperation. Further, it is felt that while slates would increase voter turnout, it may force students to vote for candidates for the wrong reasons as some positions (Finance, Operations, Student Life, and Internal) are largely administrative, and technical in nature.