>These figures are regularly updating, and could change as the count goes on.
>It is now 02:15 local time (04:15 EST/09:15 BST), here's a look at what the early results have been indicating as of the last half hour:
- Referendum: Should Alberta remain a province of Canada? Option one (remain) 1,107,558, option 2 346,261
- Do you support the government of Alberta taking increased control of immigration? Yes, 405,648, no 299,946
- Do you support a law saying only Canadian citizens being eligible for certain social services? Yes 399, 675, No 267,770
- Do you support a law saying all people with non permanent legal immigration have to have lived in Alberta for at least a year before qualifying for province funded social support programs? Yes 282,373, No 210,102
- Do you support the government of Alberta charging those with non-permanent immigration status in the province for use of health and eucation systems? Yes 223,342, No 168,873
- Do you support introducing voter ID for Alberta elections? Yes 202,367, No 130, 494
- Do you support the Alberta government working with other provinces to make amendments to the Canadian constitution? Yes, 141, 296, No 137,697
- Do you support the Alberta government in working with other willing provinces to amend Canada's constitution to abolish the unelected federal senate? Yes 120,311, No, 106, 538
- Do you support the Alberta government working with other provinces to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs? Yes 117,128, No, 123,052
- Do you support the Alberta government working with other willing provinces to amend the constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference? Yes 119,149, No 116,141
> - Do you support introducing voter ID for Alberta elections?
I realized that you copied that from BBC, but that's not a correct summary of the question. The official wording [0] of that question is
> 5. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?
Voter ID is already required for elections [1], but proof of citizenship is not. The vast majority of people (>90% in the previous elections that I worked at) used their drivers' licences as ID, but these don't list your citizenship. And the problem with passports and birth certificates is that they don't show your address (which is required to ensure that you're voting in the correct riding), so they also wouldn't be sufficient.
> - Do you support the Alberta government working with other provinces to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs?
That's also not a correct summary. Provinces are already allowed to opt out of most federally-funded but provincially-administered programs, but nobody wants to do so since that means losing out on the federal funding. The official wording of that question [0] was actually
> 8. Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?
So this question is actually asking if Alberta should be allowed to opt out of the federal governments conditions without also opting out of the funding.
The OP copied that verbatim from the BBC article. "Remain" is an accurate summary of option 1, but option 2 is worded weirdly enough that it's kinda tricky to summarize. The official wording [0] was:
> 10. Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
> Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
> Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
I suppose that "leave" would be a mostly accurate one-word summary, but that wouldn't really be quite correct since the question was if we should have another referendum where we could decide to leave or not, not whether Alberta should succeed immediately.
Wow, I didn't realize until now how sparsely populated Alberta is. Only 5 million people in a huge area and a little over 1m voters in this referendum. And some of them are worried about immigration?! Myanmar is a similar area and has 10 times as many people as Alberta.
Canada 6x’d its yearly immigration numbers starting in 2020. The country has changed dramatically since then.
To quote the Canadian redditor from my linked thread:
>The Trudeau government had a policy of letting in as many immigrants and temporary workers as possible. Almost all of them came from India. There was an entire industry, full of fraud, that existed to bring Indians to Canada.
>In many cases they allegedly came a students. But from what I can tell a lot of this was to import the cheapest possible labor from foreign countries and get them to work in low skill jobs for large National employers like Subway and Tim Hortons.
>It had some short-term benefits like a small GDP bump. But it has had significant negative impacts on the country's housing availability and affordability, infrastructure, and social cohesion.
>It's the main reason Trudeau was forced to resign.
For those wondering what the heck is going on here...
Alberta comprises a small (but increasing) proportion of Canada's population and has historically been treated in a somewhat colonial manner by Eastern Canada. Alberta separatism has been around for a long time, but it has not surged recently, nor did Albertans elect a provincial government that openly ran on separatism. So why is Alberta having a referendum on separation?
To understand what's going on, we need to look back to 2015. The Progressive Conservatives (PC's) had run the province for over 40 years. They lost an election to a centre-left party because there were two popular right-wing parties splitting the right-wing vote: The PC's and the Wildrose. The PC's, at the time, were not particularly conservative. They were predominantly urban, socially liberal, and fiscally irresponsible. The party had been fiscally conservative a couple of decades previously, but spending discipline was long gone. The Wildrose were primarily rural, far-right radicals who counted raging homophobes among their ranks and openly expressed the desire to put an end to the dominance of big cities that hold the bulk of Alberta's population. They wanted radical change, fast.
After their defeat, the bulk of the remaining Wildrose and PC's merged to form the United Conservative Party (UCP) and put an end to vote splitting. Although both parties were right-wing, they were broadly incompatible. Jason Kenney, the new UCP leader, defused an immediate explosion by ensuring that veterans of neither side rose to top positions. Instead, Kenney promoted predominantly first-time MLA's who were personally loyal to him. This kept the party together, but resulted in a fairly inept government that made a lot of blunders after they were elected to government in 2019.
Here's where the separatists enter the picture. The UCP under Kenney was anything but united, and the government's blunders were starting to make Kenney unpopular. The rift between former PC's and Wildrose was waiting to be exploited. Separatists and former Wildrosers formed special interest groups like "Take Back Alberta" that stacked UCP party conventions. While prevailing political views in Alberta remained largely the same, the UCP rapidly came to be dominated by people who wanted the former PC's and Kenney's loyalists gone. They ousted Kenney and placed a former Wildrose leader, Danielle Smith, on the party throne. Smith called a snap election and won a new mandate from voters without breathing a word about separation or most of the other policies that wound up as questions #1-9 of this referendum. Her strategy was to win a four year mandate before voters woke up to what was going on. It worked.
Kenney's cabinet was rapidly ousted and replaced with, primarily, former Wildroser's. These were people who, if not open separatists, were friendly to the separatists who had put them in power. People with MAGA links, like Devin Dreeshan (the Transport Minister), figured prominently in Smith's cabinet. Smith publicly claims to be a federalist but, ultimately, she is the primary reason Alberta is now having a referendum on separation. This is already a long post, so I'm not going to even start explaining the hoops she magicked into existence and then jumped through to make the referendum happen. Whether she's a closet separatist or simply dependent on separatists to maintain her hold on power makes little difference.
Alberta is now effectively ruled by the Wildrose 2.0. This is a party that caters to the rural, radical, and separatist special interests that dominate its internal party politics. In effect, Albertans elected a separatist government without realizing it.
1. UCP internal party politics are quite secretive. People knew that special interest groups like Take Back Alberta were calling the shots, but the fact that they were fully in support of separation was not known.
2. Smith has a Steve-Jobs-level reality distortion field. She can make insane things sound downright reasonable. There were and are people who listen to her and believe she is the staunchest federalist out there in spite of her actions telling a completely different story.
3. The Wildrose takeover was relatively quick and recent, while many voters tend to be not up on the latest news. Others may simply not have believed what they were hearing.
Next election, we'll see. It's pretty much impossible to ignore the fact that non-separatist parties generally don't go out of their way to hold separatist referendums.
An OP based in Canada and not the U.K. here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50163581
Not just a vote on independence:
>These figures are regularly updating, and could change as the count goes on.
>It is now 02:15 local time (04:15 EST/09:15 BST), here's a look at what the early results have been indicating as of the last half hour:
- Referendum: Should Alberta remain a province of Canada? Option one (remain) 1,107,558, option 2 346,261
- Do you support the government of Alberta taking increased control of immigration? Yes, 405,648, no 299,946
- Do you support a law saying only Canadian citizens being eligible for certain social services? Yes 399, 675, No 267,770
- Do you support a law saying all people with non permanent legal immigration have to have lived in Alberta for at least a year before qualifying for province funded social support programs? Yes 282,373, No 210,102
- Do you support the government of Alberta charging those with non-permanent immigration status in the province for use of health and eucation systems? Yes 223,342, No 168,873
- Do you support introducing voter ID for Alberta elections? Yes 202,367, No 130, 494
- Do you support the Alberta government working with other provinces to make amendments to the Canadian constitution? Yes, 141, 296, No 137,697
- Do you support the Alberta government in working with other willing provinces to amend Canada's constitution to abolish the unelected federal senate? Yes 120,311, No, 106, 538
- Do you support the Alberta government working with other provinces to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs? Yes 117,128, No, 123,052
- Do you support the Alberta government working with other willing provinces to amend the constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference? Yes 119,149, No 116,141
> - Do you support introducing voter ID for Alberta elections?
I realized that you copied that from BBC, but that's not a correct summary of the question. The official wording [0] of that question is
> 5. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?
Voter ID is already required for elections [1], but proof of citizenship is not. The vast majority of people (>90% in the previous elections that I worked at) used their drivers' licences as ID, but these don't list your citizenship. And the problem with passports and birth certificates is that they don't show your address (which is required to ensure that you're voting in the correct riding), so they also wouldn't be sufficient.
> - Do you support the Alberta government working with other provinces to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs?
That's also not a correct summary. Provinces are already allowed to opt out of most federally-funded but provincially-administered programs, but nobody wants to do so since that means losing out on the federal funding. The official wording of that question [0] was actually
> 8. Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?
So this question is actually asking if Alberta should be allowed to opt out of the federal governments conditions without also opting out of the funding.
[0]: https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/
[1]: https://www.elections.ab.ca/voters/id-required-to-vote/
Thanks for the corrections. Yeah, was quite the terrible summary from the BBC looking back. Weird formatting, typos...
Your use of "option one" and "option 2" made those voter numbers harder to grok
The OP copied that verbatim from the BBC article. "Remain" is an accurate summary of option 1, but option 2 is worded weirdly enough that it's kinda tricky to summarize. The official wording [0] was:
> 10. Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
> Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
> Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
I suppose that "leave" would be a mostly accurate one-word summary, but that wouldn't really be quite correct since the question was if we should have another referendum where we could decide to leave or not, not whether Alberta should succeed immediately.
[0]: https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/
What I meant was you could misread option 2 as being 2 million 3 hundred thousand etc etc
Wow, I didn't realize until now how sparsely populated Alberta is. Only 5 million people in a huge area and a little over 1m voters in this referendum. And some of them are worried about immigration?! Myanmar is a similar area and has 10 times as many people as Alberta.
https://www.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1qmpurh/canada_annu...
Canada 6x’d its yearly immigration numbers starting in 2020. The country has changed dramatically since then.
To quote the Canadian redditor from my linked thread:
>The Trudeau government had a policy of letting in as many immigrants and temporary workers as possible. Almost all of them came from India. There was an entire industry, full of fraud, that existed to bring Indians to Canada.
>In many cases they allegedly came a students. But from what I can tell a lot of this was to import the cheapest possible labor from foreign countries and get them to work in low skill jobs for large National employers like Subway and Tim Hortons.
>It had some short-term benefits like a small GDP bump. But it has had significant negative impacts on the country's housing availability and affordability, infrastructure, and social cohesion.
>It's the main reason Trudeau was forced to resign.
For those wondering what the heck is going on here...
Alberta comprises a small (but increasing) proportion of Canada's population and has historically been treated in a somewhat colonial manner by Eastern Canada. Alberta separatism has been around for a long time, but it has not surged recently, nor did Albertans elect a provincial government that openly ran on separatism. So why is Alberta having a referendum on separation?
To understand what's going on, we need to look back to 2015. The Progressive Conservatives (PC's) had run the province for over 40 years. They lost an election to a centre-left party because there were two popular right-wing parties splitting the right-wing vote: The PC's and the Wildrose. The PC's, at the time, were not particularly conservative. They were predominantly urban, socially liberal, and fiscally irresponsible. The party had been fiscally conservative a couple of decades previously, but spending discipline was long gone. The Wildrose were primarily rural, far-right radicals who counted raging homophobes among their ranks and openly expressed the desire to put an end to the dominance of big cities that hold the bulk of Alberta's population. They wanted radical change, fast.
After their defeat, the bulk of the remaining Wildrose and PC's merged to form the United Conservative Party (UCP) and put an end to vote splitting. Although both parties were right-wing, they were broadly incompatible. Jason Kenney, the new UCP leader, defused an immediate explosion by ensuring that veterans of neither side rose to top positions. Instead, Kenney promoted predominantly first-time MLA's who were personally loyal to him. This kept the party together, but resulted in a fairly inept government that made a lot of blunders after they were elected to government in 2019.
Here's where the separatists enter the picture. The UCP under Kenney was anything but united, and the government's blunders were starting to make Kenney unpopular. The rift between former PC's and Wildrose was waiting to be exploited. Separatists and former Wildrosers formed special interest groups like "Take Back Alberta" that stacked UCP party conventions. While prevailing political views in Alberta remained largely the same, the UCP rapidly came to be dominated by people who wanted the former PC's and Kenney's loyalists gone. They ousted Kenney and placed a former Wildrose leader, Danielle Smith, on the party throne. Smith called a snap election and won a new mandate from voters without breathing a word about separation or most of the other policies that wound up as questions #1-9 of this referendum. Her strategy was to win a four year mandate before voters woke up to what was going on. It worked.
Kenney's cabinet was rapidly ousted and replaced with, primarily, former Wildroser's. These were people who, if not open separatists, were friendly to the separatists who had put them in power. People with MAGA links, like Devin Dreeshan (the Transport Minister), figured prominently in Smith's cabinet. Smith publicly claims to be a federalist but, ultimately, she is the primary reason Alberta is now having a referendum on separation. This is already a long post, so I'm not going to even start explaining the hoops she magicked into existence and then jumped through to make the referendum happen. Whether she's a closet separatist or simply dependent on separatists to maintain her hold on power makes little difference.
Alberta is now effectively ruled by the Wildrose 2.0. This is a party that caters to the rural, radical, and separatist special interests that dominate its internal party politics. In effect, Albertans elected a separatist government without realizing it.
So, you realized what's going on... why doesn't that filter down to the general population?
1. UCP internal party politics are quite secretive. People knew that special interest groups like Take Back Alberta were calling the shots, but the fact that they were fully in support of separation was not known.
2. Smith has a Steve-Jobs-level reality distortion field. She can make insane things sound downright reasonable. There were and are people who listen to her and believe she is the staunchest federalist out there in spite of her actions telling a completely different story.
3. The Wildrose takeover was relatively quick and recent, while many voters tend to be not up on the latest news. Others may simply not have believed what they were hearing.
Next election, we'll see. It's pretty much impossible to ignore the fact that non-separatist parties generally don't go out of their way to hold separatist referendums.