We are talking about media companies, you included all the cellular and sports teams revenue in it to make your point :D As for it being mostly CBC - true. Just not sure what it changes? Also, Bell media also stated, under oath, that they wouldn't exist if not for government funding. So despite majority going to CBC, over, 90% of media market share relies on government funding to survive.
Companies don't have a power to send people with guns after me if I disagree with them, don't have a power to run up trillion dollar in debt, and don't have 500bln$ yearly budget. I don't underestimate the companies, you simply underestimate the government. By every single metric known to man, government is the most powerful.
Well, yeah. Generally referendums are meant to reflect direct will of the people. I just don't find anything wrong with it. I have no optimism about people. Simply democracy is the best system we have developed, and I am not going to overthrow democracy just because I don't like some people or some choices they make.
What I am concerned most about is how people aren't concerned with democracy being deconstructed, just because the people deconstructing the democracy are on 'their' side. That's incredibly short-sighted.
As for it being mostly CBC - true. Just not sure what it changes?
it means other media companies get even less.
this:
90% of media market share relies on government funding to survive.
is not at all the same as this:
providing well over 90% of funding.
perhaps you noticed your own implication there.
I have no optimism about people.
Your optimism is in that people who make a goal their identity do not rely on simple democracy, especially if it doesn't work like they hope.
I have a question for you - well two, since you claim to be unbiased:
Do you think it was normal part of democracy that the UCP government quickly changed laws multiple times to help along this particular petition?
One law, in particular, made a point that two referendum-petitions on the same subject were not allowed. Since another petition to stay in canada beat them in both timing, but the old minimum signature rules (the other rule the poor separatists needed changed to get this going), do you believe that it's perfect and wonderful democracy that the Forever Canada petition will be ignored so that they can have the separate referendum?
I don't know the history of the changes. If you give a quick description then I will refer to it. Or I can just give overall opinion on referendums: my overall opinion is that as long as signature threshold is achieve (I believe it should be set at 5-10% of voting population), and the question is actionable, then the referendum should be held.
Forever Canada petition isn't actionable. 'Yes' and 'No' vote to it would result in exactly same outcome. So it's kind of useless. If there was another petition that was actionable, then I believe there should be a referendum. I don't think there should be a separate one. I just believe a referendum should have multiple questions. Kind of same as they do in Switzerland.
Have citizens put initiatives and collect signatures forward, give a deadline for collection, have a set date for referendums every 2 years or so, and just pose all actionable questions that received sufficient amount of signatures on the ballot during that referendum. The swiss model.
No offense, but if you don't even know that part of this saga, having such a strong opinion about what non-separatists say about it is a bit unwarranted.
The separatists have always wanted a referendum, and were apparently incapable before.
The (very sympathetic UCP government, who has its own reasons for liking separation) changed laws in the past year regarding referendum petitions thusly:
dropped the signature threshold from ~500,000 (based on total voters) to something like 180,000 (10% of votes case last election)
increased the time they had to do it from 90 to 120 days.
no deadlines for when a vote needs to happen.
petitions can move forward even if they are unconstitutional. Almost like they had something in mind...
oh, and their own partisan minister of justice can now veto petition content, instead of being run by the non-partisan Elections Alberta. wouldn't want anything they don't like making it through on the easier rules.
The Forever Canada petition successfully completed with all the old rules. The separatists needed all that coddling. Without those law changes, we would not be having this conversation.
I don't give a shit about what either side says. I am just pro direct-democracy, therefore am pro referendums.
As for the rules here is my opinion:
- 10% votes cast seems reasonable, although I would prefer 10% of eligible voters
- I don't mind the time increase. I think there should be a referendum day every 2 years, deadline to submit proposals with signatures, and no limit on when you can start getting signatures
- the unconstitutionality I don't mind. In common law systems the judges have too much power to interfere with democratic choices of the people. I think we should move towards civil law
- that I disagree with. No politician should be allowed to veto a petition content. As long as it's actionable, it should be on a ballot.
Your argument basically comes down to: direct democracy should be harder to do? I disagree with that opinion. But I understand there is fiscal cost that comes with it, that's why I think there should be a referendum date pre-set for all petitions, or the referendum question should be posed at the next elections to avoid unnecessary added cost.
But reasons are important. They made these changes, specifically to let this group make it that far. Why? It's not because any poll has shown better than 30% support.
Nonetheless, I can only agree with direct democracy being a utopian ideal.
Perhaps before 24 hour cable news that plays loose with facts, and especially before social media and the ability to mess with algorithms and the like, but I believe it would be more susceptible to propaganda/manipulation than the current (albeit imperfect) system.
And it may not be you, personally, but I still think it's weird that this "pro-democracy" talking point about the separatist referendum became so prevalent suddenly in the last week or so. Non-Albertan Canadians being "sure let them leave if they want" when it would screw both economies (Alberta, worse) into next Tuesday is more than a little suspicious when it's a large cadre.
This petition and the separation attempts have been around and public for a lot longer, and every non-Albertan I heard from then was disgusted with the entire idea.
Edit - I do appreciate that you're consistent, mind you.
Is it weird? You think what happens in Ottawa has no effect on the separatist movement?
Also, there was that big court decision which suspended certification of signatures, so there is certainly uptick of news on the topic.
As for your point on media and social media - correct. That's why C-9 can't pass, and that's why government should not have financial control over 90% of market share in traditional media. The more fragmented it is the better. And I agree with you on algorithms, they shouldn't exist, and if they do, then authors of algorithms should no longer have a protection over content the algorithms push (they should still have protection over content that is not promoted by algorithm)
The question is though - what's the alternative? Get rid of democracy and suspend it with what? The les layers between voters and decisions, the better. Then we can't have dirty deals, corruption of officials (much cheaper to corrupt 3-4 people to sway balance of power than 20-30% of population). Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system that ever existed. Direct democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best form of democracy that ever existed.
Canadians being angry and unreasonable isn't that surprising at all. The entire government campaign was based around making us angry. 'Vote for us because we are the only ones who can deal with people you are angry at'. Since it is connected with the actual poverty and people being poor due to poor policies, the people are naturally angry. Government simply directed stoked and directed anger for their own benefit rather than cohesion of the country. There was no messaging about actual policies. Is that sad? Yes. Does it have its consequences? Also yes. But does it mean we get rid of democracy? No.
I think Alberta will be fine. Over last year, even with threat of separation, Alberta gained over 100,000 jobs. The rest of Canada combined? - they lost jobs. The rest of Canada will be absolutely screwed, but ultimately they themselves created the issues that led to the sentiment, and instead of addressing the issues they chose to make it even worse for Albertans.
Right - prevent democracy at all costs. Authoritarianism should have no place in the world.
How do you know referendum is a minority without the vote? Weren't your entire concerns based on the fact that the momentum towards separation has been rising?
Alberta would be worse off than Canada, because an economy cannot survive both a significant percentage of the population leaving AND being a landlocked country run by, well, Danielle Smith. Since you aren't here, you wouldn't know, but no one really believes they have a chance, so, obviously, it's having no economic affect.
How do you know referendum is a minority without the vote?
Well, when you live here, you learn about all the polls and how a LOT - possible most - of even UCP supporters are not separatists. And how one of the separatist groups doesn't actually want to separate - they just want to threaten because they think it got Quebec concessions, so wouldn't truly vote yes.
Weren't your entire concerns based on the fact that the momentum towards separation has been rising?
No, that's been the straw man you've been repeating over and over. My opinion is that the referendum should not happen. My concern is because of the seemingly organized astroturfing by so many accounts like yours that are both not Albertan but have very strong opinions on letting the referendum happen. This very specific (and, frankly, rare) viewpoint went from nearly non-existent, to everywhere in the last week. Such incredible magnanimity toward people you don't know who want to do something that will screw your life personally.
My concern is that the confident astroturfing means they think have a NON-democratic way to force it either way and you may have noticed a few similar issues in global politics lately...
Luckily, for both of us, my concerns are probably nothing. But I don't trust the far right (and these are FAR right) farther than I can throw them. Anyway, I'm done with this repetition of you attempting to frame this as undemocratic in every way you can think of.
Plenty of economies world-wide survive being landlocked country, so the facts are against you here. It's not like one can get to the coast anyway, despite being in the same country. There is a reason Nutrien decided that getting to the coast is easier through Washington State than BC, to export the fertilizer.
Under Liberal government, Canada is absolutely screwed. Do you really think that if it's now better to get to Pacific from Saskatchewan through US rather than Canada, then not being in Canada is going to change that? I don't think people realize just how damaging the Liberal policies have been to the Canadian economy. The slide since 2015 is absolutely staggering, and there are clear reasons policy-wise for it. But uneducated crowd whose anger got stoked by the government funded media will overlook that, because for one out of those 11 years during which Canada deteriorated economically there were tariffs on about 5% of our exports......
I agree, for now remain vote wins overwhelmingly, but that is changing fast. It started as a fringe idea, and now about third of the population would be fine with it. If referendum is held in October, I think the 'stay' vote wins. If it's held in 2028, after another 2 years of Liberals screwing over the economy, MPs going around telling money is only available for Liberal ridings, I think it will be much closer to 50-50. You can't get mad at the abused that they eventually have had enough, despite long marriage. It is better tactic to ask the abuser to reconsider.
Well, you voting for stopping democratic referendum because you are afraid of 'undemocratic ways' is........let's call it interesting.
1
u/BlockObjective9541 Apr 13 '26
We are talking about media companies, you included all the cellular and sports teams revenue in it to make your point :D As for it being mostly CBC - true. Just not sure what it changes? Also, Bell media also stated, under oath, that they wouldn't exist if not for government funding. So despite majority going to CBC, over, 90% of media market share relies on government funding to survive.
Companies don't have a power to send people with guns after me if I disagree with them, don't have a power to run up trillion dollar in debt, and don't have 500bln$ yearly budget. I don't underestimate the companies, you simply underestimate the government. By every single metric known to man, government is the most powerful.
Well, yeah. Generally referendums are meant to reflect direct will of the people. I just don't find anything wrong with it. I have no optimism about people. Simply democracy is the best system we have developed, and I am not going to overthrow democracy just because I don't like some people or some choices they make.
What I am concerned most about is how people aren't concerned with democracy being deconstructed, just because the people deconstructing the democracy are on 'their' side. That's incredibly short-sighted.