Very clearly presented as usual. I am hoping that someone or group will organize the "no" side, the pluralist side in this war of words. Surely there is someone out there that has the political knowhow and organizational skills that could make it a true grass roots movement akin to the Forever Canada petition, of which we are still awaiting legislative action. I think that the Forever Canadian movement showed that the majority of Alberta's Canadians would vote no on the questions that have been put forth, but some organizing of information dispersal is needed. And that information must be factual, short and if possible reduced to the UCP/CPC sloganeering. I really think that if those who are leaning toward yeses on the 9 questions and on the separation issue hear a few slogans over and over again a fair number of those who just want to send a message may get the message. That message seems to be "Be careful for what you wish as you may just get it!".
The challenge will be in actual wording, and of course, how many questions Albertans end up being asked. (Wait for daylight savings time to be added
Will we have 2 competing questions about national unity, separation? If the No New Mining in the Rockies Petition is successful, Ms Smith has committed to putting it to a referendum.
A blanket Yes/No strategy is not likely to be helpful.
i appreciate the analysis on populism and pluralism. We have a lot of civic literacy work to do in the months ahead. I'm commited to the challenge. The stakes are high.
Again you nailed it. I have always maintained that Smith’s style of governing (or not) is lazy and cynical. Referendums fit the bill. On all questions, no is the only answer, but abstention is the real answer. I do not accept the process.
Albertans seem unable to let go of their political identity even for one cycle no matter how much they disagree with the state of their health and education and the blatant corruption happening in their government.
The current recalls gave them an opportunity to clearly say we aren’t happy with the direction you are going and we need change but nothing has happened and Danielle Smith knows this
There are a number of sequential steps involved in the development of sound public policy, but they start with the questions:
1. What is the issue?
2. What does the evidence say about that issue?
3. What is the outcome desired by effecting a public policy on this issue? How will achieving that outcome make our society better for all?
After that, there are a number of additional questions that need to be answered, but the point is that proceeding by referenda means the government defines the issue, and all the subsequent questions are ignored. It is government based on opinion, not fact; political expediency, not advancing the public good.
What are the chances the No people will be as motivated to actually vote as the aggrieved Yes people?
Conservatives, both prov and fed, seem increasingly reliant on emotionally driving their voters to polls, rather than even trying to make rational arguments to persuade the broader electorate.
As you say, pluralism is hard work, and who has time or brains for that...
This cynical electoral manipulation is MAGA Rule #1 -- depress general voter turnout, and win with whipped up base.
Smith and her UCP tacticians have set up yet another trap, and it will end up catching everyone.
Well written article that clarifies my understanding. That being said, I support the idea of the referenda simply because they up the stakes with the federal government. I hate that it has come to this, but the Feds have played games for too long and continue to send mixed signals:
The Carney government has enough challenges with sliding per capita GDP, soaring debt, inflation, a likley PQ victory and trade negotiations with the US. The easiest fire to extinguish is to remove barriers to energy investment. The timing of the referenda is perfect as if the Carney government doesn't deliver on the terms of the MOU, the referenda questions become "Do you hate Ottawa?".
On another note, I lived in Australia for many years. Over that span, the government conducted referenda on same sex marriage, and "the voice", which was a constitutional recognition of indigenous groups. I voted Yes on the First, and No on the second which aligned with the majority opinion. Both referenda provided cover to the government to settle issues and focus on the more important. An AB referendum on separation could serve the same purpose unless the Feds do something stupid, as it will be decisively defeated. The parallels to Brexit are worrying, but I don't see other paths to forcing the Feds to do their job and pushing the separation distraction far into the background.
I feel like the general public cannot be informed on all the identified issues, and given that most of the are of lower priority it will be harder still.
What we need is a strong campaign for either "none of the above" (if it's an option), and if not, either spoiled ballots or non participation.
Very clearly presented as usual. I am hoping that someone or group will organize the "no" side, the pluralist side in this war of words. Surely there is someone out there that has the political knowhow and organizational skills that could make it a true grass roots movement akin to the Forever Canada petition, of which we are still awaiting legislative action. I think that the Forever Canadian movement showed that the majority of Alberta's Canadians would vote no on the questions that have been put forth, but some organizing of information dispersal is needed. And that information must be factual, short and if possible reduced to the UCP/CPC sloganeering. I really think that if those who are leaning toward yeses on the 9 questions and on the separation issue hear a few slogans over and over again a fair number of those who just want to send a message may get the message. That message seems to be "Be careful for what you wish as you may just get it!".
Thank you. I appreciate the description of the differences between populism and pluarism.
The challenge will be in actual wording, and of course, how many questions Albertans end up being asked. (Wait for daylight savings time to be added
Will we have 2 competing questions about national unity, separation? If the No New Mining in the Rockies Petition is successful, Ms Smith has committed to putting it to a referendum.
A blanket Yes/No strategy is not likely to be helpful.
i appreciate the analysis on populism and pluralism. We have a lot of civic literacy work to do in the months ahead. I'm commited to the challenge. The stakes are high.
An excellent essay. Thank you for outlining the stakes.
Again you nailed it. I have always maintained that Smith’s style of governing (or not) is lazy and cynical. Referendums fit the bill. On all questions, no is the only answer, but abstention is the real answer. I do not accept the process.
Great stuff, Jared. Sending to my Alberta family ...
I increasingly think direct democracy is anathema to our Westminster system of representative democracy.
I also increasingly think that there is such a thing as “too much democracy.”
Sadly, both ideas are complicated to communicate in our 140 character world.
Albertans seem unable to let go of their political identity even for one cycle no matter how much they disagree with the state of their health and education and the blatant corruption happening in their government.
The current recalls gave them an opportunity to clearly say we aren’t happy with the direction you are going and we need change but nothing has happened and Danielle Smith knows this
There are a number of sequential steps involved in the development of sound public policy, but they start with the questions:
1. What is the issue?
2. What does the evidence say about that issue?
3. What is the outcome desired by effecting a public policy on this issue? How will achieving that outcome make our society better for all?
After that, there are a number of additional questions that need to be answered, but the point is that proceeding by referenda means the government defines the issue, and all the subsequent questions are ignored. It is government based on opinion, not fact; political expediency, not advancing the public good.
Like in any vote, turnout is key.
What are the chances the No people will be as motivated to actually vote as the aggrieved Yes people?
Conservatives, both prov and fed, seem increasingly reliant on emotionally driving their voters to polls, rather than even trying to make rational arguments to persuade the broader electorate.
As you say, pluralism is hard work, and who has time or brains for that...
This cynical electoral manipulation is MAGA Rule #1 -- depress general voter turnout, and win with whipped up base.
Smith and her UCP tacticians have set up yet another trap, and it will end up catching everyone.
Good luck, Albertans.
Well written article that clarifies my understanding. That being said, I support the idea of the referenda simply because they up the stakes with the federal government. I hate that it has come to this, but the Feds have played games for too long and continue to send mixed signals:
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/carneys-energy-superpower-talk-isnt-cutting-it-we-need-action-heather-exner-pirot-in-the-hub/
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ivison-mark-carney-danielle-smith-mou
The Carney government has enough challenges with sliding per capita GDP, soaring debt, inflation, a likley PQ victory and trade negotiations with the US. The easiest fire to extinguish is to remove barriers to energy investment. The timing of the referenda is perfect as if the Carney government doesn't deliver on the terms of the MOU, the referenda questions become "Do you hate Ottawa?".
On another note, I lived in Australia for many years. Over that span, the government conducted referenda on same sex marriage, and "the voice", which was a constitutional recognition of indigenous groups. I voted Yes on the First, and No on the second which aligned with the majority opinion. Both referenda provided cover to the government to settle issues and focus on the more important. An AB referendum on separation could serve the same purpose unless the Feds do something stupid, as it will be decisively defeated. The parallels to Brexit are worrying, but I don't see other paths to forcing the Feds to do their job and pushing the separation distraction far into the background.
Excellent synopsis.
I feel like the general public cannot be informed on all the identified issues, and given that most of the are of lower priority it will be harder still.
What we need is a strong campaign for either "none of the above" (if it's an option), and if not, either spoiled ballots or non participation.