The UCD Students’ Union (UCDSU) recently held a referendum to reform its constitution. The proposals included reducing the quorum for future referenda from 12.5% to 10% and allowing the election of continuing class representatives in the second semester. However, despite these measures being approved by most of those who voted, the referendum failed to meet the required quorum. With a turnout of just 10.6% — 3,391 votes cast out of 31,993 eligible students — the referendum is another reminder of the apathy and disengagement that plague student politics at UCD. Alongside this referendum, The College Tribune conducted a survey to better understand students’ views on the SU. The results shed light on why many chose not to vote and reveal a growing disconnect between the union and the students it represents.
The Referendum in Numbers
The referendum posed two key questions to students. The first sought to lower the quorum threshold for constitutional referenda to 10%. Of the votes cast, 59% were in favour and 41% against. The second question addressed changes (that weren’t very well explained) to class representative elections, with 65.7% in favour and 34.3% against. Despite these results, the overall turnout meant that neither proposal could pass. To meet the existing quorum, at least 12.5% of the student body—or approximately 4,000 students — needed to participate. The turnout of 10.6%, while higher than some previous referenda, fell well short of this threshold, leaving the SU unable to implement the proposed reforms.
Why Didn’t Students Vote?
Our survey asked students why they didn’t participate in the referendum. The most common reason, cited by 34%, was that they didn’t know it was happening. Another 28% said they didn’t think the referendum was important, while 19% said they were too busy. More interestingly, some respondents revealed the ‘No’ campaign tactics for lowering quorum. One student stated, “Essentially, I was against the changes, but I knew if I voted, I could lead to quorum being met, so I strategically didn’t vote.” Another wrote, “I would vote no, but if I voted, it probably would result in a yes vote due to fulfilling the quota.”
Others found the referendum confusing, with one respondent saying, “I didn’t really understand the difference in the amendment changes they were asking me to pass or not.”
This mix of apathy, confusion, and deliberate abstention highlights the challenges facing the SU in engaging with and connecting with students meaningfully and ensuring cohesion within its ranks.
Do Students Feel Represented?
We also asked students to rate how well the SU represents their concerns. Responses varied, with many expressing scepticism about the union’s relevance, and our sliding scale trended mainly toward the lower end. President Miranda Bauer defended the SU’s work for the student body, stating, “We are highly visible in the support we provide, whether it’s representing individual students in complex academic appeals or advocating for campus-wide issues like housing, cost of living, or mental health.”
However, these efforts don’t always translate into a sense of connection with the broader student body. Some students view the SU as ineffective or disconnected from their immediate concerns.
A Broader Issue of Engagement
Low voter turnout is not unique to this referendum. Participation in SU elections and referenda has long been challenging at UCD and across student unions nationwide. President Bauer described the turnout as a “structure test” for the union, providing insights into the SU’s ability to mobilise students. She noted that turnout for SU elections has improved in recent years, with 4,168 votes cast in 2024 compared to 2,960 in 2023—a 40% increase. Referendums are an entirely different story, however, and she acknowledged that procedural reforms, like those proposed in this referendum, are often more complex to communicate to students than more high-profile campaigns. The SU’s communication strategy was also limited by restrictions on the Sabbatical Team, who apparently could not campaign for a “Yes” vote during working hours. Bauer suggested extending voting over three days or increasing campaigning efforts might have helped, but these measures came too late for this referendum. It also begs the question of why €3,500 was invested into a referendum that members of the union couldn’t even effectively promote, an issue recently covered by our friends over at the Observer.
What Does This Mean for the SU?
The referendum results and survey data highlight a recurring theme: many students are disengaged from the SU and its activities. While apathy undoubtedly plays a role, deliberate decisions not to vote and confusion over the referendum questions suggest deeper issues with how the SU connects with its members. The question of representation remains central. While the SU advocates for students on key issues like housing and academic appeals, its efforts often fail to resonate with the broader student body regarding procedural and day-to-day issues. One student said, “The SU doesn’t do much to represent students. It acts unprofessionally and isn’t taken seriously.”
This sense of disconnect poses a significant challenge for the union as it seeks to rebuild its relevance and engage students more effectively. The failure of the UCDSU referendum is not just a procedural setback—it reflects broader issues within student politics. Apathy, distrust, and disengagement have combined to create an environment where even well-intentioned reforms struggle to gain traction. The referendum may have been framed as a necessary step towards a more functional SU. Still, its failure raises a more fundamental question: if so few students are willing to participate, what role does the SU truly play in their university experience?
By Jack Donlon
