Danielle Smith added a separation question no one can answer to Alberta’s referendum amid foreign interference, voter-data break, and legal challenges.
I view the particular question added tonight as being deliberately stupid. As noted, neither a yes nor a no vote can be discerned as meaning anything in particular. As a result, I believe that the question is oriented to accomplishing two things.
First, whatever the result, the foolishness of the question will allow Danielle Smith to assert "success" in her federalist effort. Second, at best (see below my discussion of "at best") this vote will allow Smith to kick the separatist question down the road in the hope that it will go away.
Now, for "at best": I think that the separatists will take a bit of time (only a bit, but some) to think about the referendum question as put forward and realize that the question simply has no meaning no matter the outcome. As a result, I think that the separatists will see the trap clearly and will call upon the populace to boycott the particular question and, perhaps, the other nine questions as well. In that event, Smith's expected "at best" will have real future consequences.
As for Danielle Smith, my opinion of her has declined. I have preciously perceived her as a federalist and as a straight shooter. Her politics aren't those of some folks but, I always felt, she was straight forward. The addition of this question has caused me to reconsider my previous perceptions. I feel that no question at all would have been better than one that cannot be understood and cannot be answered.
The question is deliberately unanswerable — the documented record supports that reading entirely. Your boycott scenario is a real risk, and an ambiguous result in a documented foreign interference environment is worse than no vote at all.
Smith's televised address tonight read less like a federalist solution and more like a call to arms. She did specifically say she would be pursuing separation if that's what the ambiguous results call for.
I absolutely agree that the address was a call to arms. To the federalist side. It certainly wasn't a "solution" but was a marginal justification and a call to rally the troops.
As I said previously, I suspect that the separatists may well boycott the referendum or, at least, this question. Such a boycott, if successful [and who can define success in that?] would be more problematic for the federalist cause as it would lead to questions about just how large IS the separatist support. In other words, when you cannot measure something that doesn't exist (i.e. the separatist vote in a referendum) because of the boycott then it becomes much more ominous for the federalist side.
So, a separatist call for a boycott after Smith's call to arms could damage her irreparably; in other words, if the separatists are successful in boycotting and Smith is not obviously successful in rallying the federalist side - and how can she be successful with that question? - her future would be difficult.
One other danger in this political fight: the overuse and mixed use of metaphors of all types.
A low-turnout result on an unanswerable question, in an environment where foreign actors are already amplifying the separatist narrative, hands the interpretation to whoever wants it most — and the separatist movement and its foreign supporters are better positioned to exploit ambiguity than the federalist side is.
Smith may have created a problem she cannot measure and therefore cannot win. And if she can't win it in Alberta, the consequences fall on all Canadians — because this referendum environment stopped being a provincial matter the moment foreign actors, federal constitutional obligations, and 2.9 million Canadians' voter data became part of it.
That's accurate and defensible. One small addition worth considering: the government also controls what happens with the result — they set the questions, declared five non-binding before the campaign began, and will interpret whatever October 19 produces.
The voters don't just wait for the answer. They may never get a clear one.
Constitutional uncertainty of this kind has direct consequences for business investment. Every month this remains unanswered is a month Alberta's investment environment carries risk that its competitors do not.
Exactly what I think of her question, its clearly a 2 part question, but she used her word salad to toss them together! It needs to be tossed straight into the garbage can. 🗑
Absolutely agree and just how does one even vote it a two part question or one I usually do not get confused but I am or was that what Smith wanted to do so people make a mistake
It's definitely not a question that points to get an answer about separation from Albertans. It appears just to be there to confuse and ultimately give the Alberta government the freedom to do whatever the Alberta governments agenda is. However, all of the 10 questions are very similar in clarity.
Of course because as I was listening to her how she talked even taking credit for the federal government removal of alot of the previous government. When I know that it was our PM that knew that those items were causing the problem
This new question is actually two questions. The first is "should Alberta stay in Canada," which you can vote yes or no. The second is "should the Alberta government hold a referendum?," that can also be answered yes or no. If you vote yes to stay in Canada then your yes vote also applies to the second question, "hold a referendum," which people don't want. If you vote no to the referendum question, then no also applies to the stay in Canada part. It's unanswerable as one question because either yes or no gives you the opposite result.
This is insane. We need two answers. Stay in Canada-yes. Hold a referendum-no. Someone explain how you can answer this "question" with one answer. Am I missing something?
The long-term issue may become less about whether people support separation and more about whether voters, courts, Indigenous nations, and Ottawa all interpret the result the same way. A referendum question that can mean different things to different groups risks producing more constitutional conflict after the vote instead of clarity from it.
Smith has proven by her own actions she does not honour the results of referendums. Case in point the referendum question re the time change question held years ago. Albertan’s voted to stay with time change in spring and fall. Smith this past few weeks went against the vote by Albertan’s and did what she wanted regardless of what Albertan’s voted.
That is fact. We've updated the post with new information from Elections Alberta on the question(s), and also included Smith's May 15 meeting with Prime Minister Carney when they signed a major energy agreement in Calgary — explicitly described by both governments as a step to convince Alberta's separatist movement not to give up on Canada. Not sure how Carney will interpret Smith's new move.
The Smith claims are on all channels. We do not ignore what we see and hear just because we don’t like the channel. She has been repeating this misinformation in recent interviews across multiple outlets.
The “CBC is propaganda” line is a political talking point, not a proven fact; even critics usually point to bias or funding. It likely spread through years of partisan attacks on CBC, especially claims about left bias, tax funding, and selective coverage. The charge becomes sticky because CBC has had some real mistakes and visible criticism, but “propaganda” is a rhetorical leap, not a substantiated fact.
Smith is a HOMEGROWN TERRORIST. Albertans cant separate the province of Alberta from the rest of Canada BUT they can LEAVE. Canada will gladly give them one way tickets to Arizona .. Danielle Smith first in line. CANADA WILL NEVER ABANDON ALBERTA. Watch out Danielle, you do not know who you are messing with. No longer will Canadians living in Alberta be held under seige by the UPC and Danielle Smith alone. Enough is enough.
I view the particular question added tonight as being deliberately stupid. As noted, neither a yes nor a no vote can be discerned as meaning anything in particular. As a result, I believe that the question is oriented to accomplishing two things.
First, whatever the result, the foolishness of the question will allow Danielle Smith to assert "success" in her federalist effort. Second, at best (see below my discussion of "at best") this vote will allow Smith to kick the separatist question down the road in the hope that it will go away.
Now, for "at best": I think that the separatists will take a bit of time (only a bit, but some) to think about the referendum question as put forward and realize that the question simply has no meaning no matter the outcome. As a result, I think that the separatists will see the trap clearly and will call upon the populace to boycott the particular question and, perhaps, the other nine questions as well. In that event, Smith's expected "at best" will have real future consequences.
As for Danielle Smith, my opinion of her has declined. I have preciously perceived her as a federalist and as a straight shooter. Her politics aren't those of some folks but, I always felt, she was straight forward. The addition of this question has caused me to reconsider my previous perceptions. I feel that no question at all would have been better than one that cannot be understood and cannot be answered.
The question is deliberately unanswerable — the documented record supports that reading entirely. Your boycott scenario is a real risk, and an ambiguous result in a documented foreign interference environment is worse than no vote at all.
Smith's televised address tonight read less like a federalist solution and more like a call to arms. She did specifically say she would be pursuing separation if that's what the ambiguous results call for.
I absolutely agree that the address was a call to arms. To the federalist side. It certainly wasn't a "solution" but was a marginal justification and a call to rally the troops.
As I said previously, I suspect that the separatists may well boycott the referendum or, at least, this question. Such a boycott, if successful [and who can define success in that?] would be more problematic for the federalist cause as it would lead to questions about just how large IS the separatist support. In other words, when you cannot measure something that doesn't exist (i.e. the separatist vote in a referendum) because of the boycott then it becomes much more ominous for the federalist side.
So, a separatist call for a boycott after Smith's call to arms could damage her irreparably; in other words, if the separatists are successful in boycotting and Smith is not obviously successful in rallying the federalist side - and how can she be successful with that question? - her future would be difficult.
One other danger in this political fight: the overuse and mixed use of metaphors of all types.
A low-turnout result on an unanswerable question, in an environment where foreign actors are already amplifying the separatist narrative, hands the interpretation to whoever wants it most — and the separatist movement and its foreign supporters are better positioned to exploit ambiguity than the federalist side is.
Smith may have created a problem she cannot measure and therefore cannot win. And if she can't win it in Alberta, the consequences fall on all Canadians — because this referendum environment stopped being a provincial matter the moment foreign actors, federal constitutional obligations, and 2.9 million Canadians' voter data became part of it.
I cannot believe that sane people are addressing this question as if it were meaningful!
We're not quite sure how to determine meaningful at this point. Alberta seems to be working in unique and unusual ways.
The post has been updated and new information has been added. The question has now been made clear to be a question to vote for another referendum...
This will bring nothing but economic harm, division and uncertainty- potentially for years. It is beyond irresponsible.
That's accurate and defensible. One small addition worth considering: the government also controls what happens with the result — they set the questions, declared five non-binding before the campaign began, and will interpret whatever October 19 produces.
The voters don't just wait for the answer. They may never get a clear one.
Constitutional uncertainty of this kind has direct consequences for business investment. Every month this remains unanswered is a month Alberta's investment environment carries risk that its competitors do not.
Exactly what I think of her question, its clearly a 2 part question, but she used her word salad to toss them together! It needs to be tossed straight into the garbage can. 🗑
It seems to be pointing in a different direction. Based on the evidence and facts, separation does not appear to be the final goal.
Absolutely agree and just how does one even vote it a two part question or one I usually do not get confused but I am or was that what Smith wanted to do so people make a mistake
It's definitely not a question that points to get an answer about separation from Albertans. It appears just to be there to confuse and ultimately give the Alberta government the freedom to do whatever the Alberta governments agenda is. However, all of the 10 questions are very similar in clarity.
Of course because as I was listening to her how she talked even taking credit for the federal government removal of alot of the previous government. When I know that it was our PM that knew that those items were causing the problem
This new question is actually two questions. The first is "should Alberta stay in Canada," which you can vote yes or no. The second is "should the Alberta government hold a referendum?," that can also be answered yes or no. If you vote yes to stay in Canada then your yes vote also applies to the second question, "hold a referendum," which people don't want. If you vote no to the referendum question, then no also applies to the stay in Canada part. It's unanswerable as one question because either yes or no gives you the opposite result.
This is insane. We need two answers. Stay in Canada-yes. Hold a referendum-no. Someone explain how you can answer this "question" with one answer. Am I missing something?
The long-term issue may become less about whether people support separation and more about whether voters, courts, Indigenous nations, and Ottawa all interpret the result the same way. A referendum question that can mean different things to different groups risks producing more constitutional conflict after the vote instead of clarity from it.
Smith has proven by her own actions she does not honour the results of referendums. Case in point the referendum question re the time change question held years ago. Albertan’s voted to stay with time change in spring and fall. Smith this past few weeks went against the vote by Albertan’s and did what she wanted regardless of what Albertan’s voted.
That is fact. We've updated the post with new information from Elections Alberta on the question(s), and also included Smith's May 15 meeting with Prime Minister Carney when they signed a major energy agreement in Calgary — explicitly described by both governments as a step to convince Alberta's separatist movement not to give up on Canada. Not sure how Carney will interpret Smith's new move.
Just the fact you used CBC for ANY "factual" reportimg is very shameful@@ they are propaganda.
The Smith claims are on all channels. We do not ignore what we see and hear just because we don’t like the channel. She has been repeating this misinformation in recent interviews across multiple outlets.
But if you don't like it, how many more do not like it now that they know it's propaganda?
The “CBC is propaganda” line is a political talking point, not a proven fact; even critics usually point to bias or funding. It likely spread through years of partisan attacks on CBC, especially claims about left bias, tax funding, and selective coverage. The charge becomes sticky because CBC has had some real mistakes and visible criticism, but “propaganda” is a rhetorical leap, not a substantiated fact.
Smith is a HOMEGROWN TERRORIST. Albertans cant separate the province of Alberta from the rest of Canada BUT they can LEAVE. Canada will gladly give them one way tickets to Arizona .. Danielle Smith first in line. CANADA WILL NEVER ABANDON ALBERTA. Watch out Danielle, you do not know who you are messing with. No longer will Canadians living in Alberta be held under seige by the UPC and Danielle Smith alone. Enough is enough.
ELBOWS UP Canada stands with Alberta. 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
And so it should