Cecession Referendums in Canada

[Barquentine]

So imagine. The rule being touted is 50% plus one. If the separatists won by that slim majority where would they be?

Could they secede with half the population against it? I would think you'd need at least 60%, possibly more to even consider it.

And they are not simply trying to take a province out of Canada, they are trying to take Canada out of that province, not something they would have

the power to do just because of a vote.

And of course the big question: For what? Cutting off their nose to spite their face?

At least Quebec has an historical argument.

 

[Michael Hardner]

Gemini pointed to this:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/plebiscitarianism-revisited-a-typology-of-independence-referendums/685CF6CC6ADF1D6AF10D07C808960449

 

Quote

The 50% + 1 Baseline: In most democratic referendums historically monitored or recognized by international bodies, a simple majority (50% plus one of the valid votes cast) is considered the baseline to trigger negotiations or declare independence

I agree that it's too low a mark but that's just an opinion.  Politically, you would have to contend with the backlash if you tried to legislate a higher number, IMO, especially if a significant measure of support for secession already exists.

[Nationalist]

"OH BAD ALBERTA! BAD BAD ALBERTA! THEY DONT WANT THE EASTERN PROVINCES TO MUG THEM ANYMORE. BAD ALBERTA!"

You dumb pansies. Don't you realize Alberta has no choice anymore?

Canastan needs Alberta WAY more than Alberta needs Canastan.

[Moonbox]

When are you leaving Canada again?  

[Goddess]

It's official. We have a referendum, with a 2-choice question.

The referendum question to be put to the electors, and to which an elector who votes in the referendum must respond by selecting only one option, shall be:

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.

Advance voting allowed, no mail-in ballots.

 

[Michael Hardner]

https://338canada.com/alberta/20260523-ang-ind.htm

Latest Angus Reid - 60% stay 35% leave - for the record

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Could they secede with half the population against it? I would think you'd need at least 60%, possibly more to even consider it.

....

At least Quebec has an historical argument.

I can't help but recall how high a bar is set when Canadians simply hold referendums on how they're represented in Parliament or Legislatures.

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

From Michael's article

The 50% + 1 Baseline: In most democratic referendums historically monitored or recognized by international bodies, a simple majority (50% plus one of the valid votes cast) is considered the baseline to trigger negotiations or declare independence

If 50%+1 was enough BC would have been governing itself proportionally decades ago.

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, Barquentine said:

So imagine. The rule being touted is 50% plus one. If the separatists won by that slim majority where would they be?

Could they secede with half the population against it? I would think you'd need at least 60%, possibly more to even consider it.

And they are not simply trying to take a province out of Canada, they are trying to take Canada out of that province, not something they would have

the power to do just because of a vote.

And of course the big question: For what? Cutting off their nose to spite their face?

At least Quebec has an historical argument.

 

I have never heard anybody anywhere tout the rules as a simple majority. Well many numbers have been bandied about it seems to be universally accepted that it's got to be clear.

In fact the legislation that would govern it is literally The Clarity Act

[Moonlight Graham]

Can't wait until this is over so the separatist traitors will finally STFU.

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://338canada.com/alberta/20260523-ang-ind.htm

Latest Angus Reid - 60% stay 35% leave - for the record

We saw the same thing with brexit. When discussion gets out there these things have a horrible habit of taking on a life of their own. It has to be taken seriously. That is 100 percent even more true if this referendum proceeds to the next referendum. 

But honestly i think one of the things that may wind up driving this is people's reaction. When it was quebec everyone back east was "oh we love quebec we don't want to see them leave they have legit concerns that need to be addressed",  but with alberta its  "you whiny brats should be thankful we don't milk you dry, you have NO valid complaints."

That kind of gets under their skin. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

So do the pro-Alberta independence crowd here think Canada should have the same rules on secession that the US has for its states?

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When it was quebec everyone back east was "oh we love quebec we don't want to see them leave they have legit concerns that need to be addressed",  but with alberta its  "you whiny brats should be thankful we don't milk you dry, you have NO valid complaints."

That kind of gets under their skin. 

You hear the same thing from more western Canadians, Alberta's bastards can shiver in the dark right along with the rest AFAIC.

If that doesn't get at least a like from @Nefarious Banana I'm going to be disappointed.

That said he is east of me I think so...fingers crossed.

Edited May 31 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You hear the same thing from more western Canadians, Alberta's bastards can shiver in the dark right along with the rest AFAIC.

If that doesn't get at least a like from @Nefarious Banana I'm going to be disappointed.

 

😆😆😆😆

People have generally become less tolerant of other people over the last 10 years. Trudeau spent all of his time trying to divide people and it's kind of stuck.

But the problem is that is exactly the kind of talking nonsense that Stokes separation.  And regardless of our differences (i'm right you're left,  I like scotch, you like beer, i'm human you're a mutated life form from alpa centauri etc)  i think we can both agree that by and large separatist sentiment isn't good for canada if it can be avoided. 

These things get a life of their own, and the more it gets discussed and 'put out there' and the more we see the kind of replies you were just saying the more separation sentiment is going to grow and the bigger the chance of an...  what are we calling this, not 'brexit', perhaps al-be-leavnin'now maybe? Kinda sounds first nation-y

This stuff can very suddenly flare up and take off and telling albertans they have nothing valid to be unhappy about and to pee up a rope will just fan the fires. 

 

[Barquentine]

On 5/30/2026 at 3:01 AM, CdnFox said:

I have never heard anybody anywhere tout the rules as a simple majority.

50%+1 is and was the accepted bar in Quebec though I don't think it's been thought through.

 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I like scotch, you like beer

Scotch and beer.

[Nefarious Banana]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

You hear the same thing from more western Canadians, Alberta's bastards can shiver in the dark right along with the rest AFAIC.

If that doesn't get at least a like from @Nefarious Banana I'm going to be disappointed.

That said he is east of me I think so...fingers crossed.

Don't want Alberta to leave, and don't think they will.  Since senior Trudeau, there's been a rising dissatisfaction with Liberal federal governments  and the constant pandering with Quebec.  

May be east of you . . . ?  East coast of VI . . . 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

People have generally become less tolerant of other people over the last 10 years.

Just 10 years you say. Where the were you the previous 40?

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This stuff can very suddenly flare up and take off and telling albertans they have nothing valid to be unhappy about and to pee up a rope will just fan the fires. 

They could pee on the fire instead of pouring gasoline on it.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

i'm right you're left

This is what's really causing things to flare.

 

[John Johnston]

On 5/30/2026 at 1:02 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

Can't wait until this is over so the separatist traitors will finally STFU.

Hahahahaha. That's my thinking as well. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Don't want Alberta to leave, and don't think they will.  Since senior Trudeau, there's been a rising dissatisfaction with Liberal federal governments  and the constant pandering with Quebec.  

I don't think they will either, they appear to have enough lefties to prevent it.

24 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

May be east of you . . . ?  East coast of VI . . . 

Yup.

[Legato]

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

50%+1 is and was the accepted bar in Quebec though I don't think it's been thought through.

So you're probably  a little young to remember this but as a result of that the gov't came up with the "clarity act". 

There is no legal provision for a province to separate unilaterally.  So that's kind of forbidden short of armed rebellion. 

Instead what they said is that the gov't is required to enter into negotiations with a province that votes to separate.  But the Feds must agree that the question was clear and the results were clear.  Here's what the clarity act says about that (paraphrased by ai)

The legislation does not stipulate a fixed percentage (such as \(50\% + 1\)) for what constitutes a winning vote. Instead, the House of Commons evaluates a clear majority by looking at: [1, 2]

• The size of the majority vote endorsing secession.
• The overall voter turnout and percentage of eligible voters participating.
• Any other relevant circumstances at the time of the vote

 

So if there's a vote, for it to be "legal" the gov't has to reasonably agree that the question was clear, and that given ALL the factors the vote shows a CLEAR majority.  So for example if two voters showed up and it was a 100 percent in favor of separating the gov't would say "two people can't be considered to represent a majority". 

So you can't pin it down to a precise number but it would be very very unlikely that 50+1 would be considered to be a 'clear' majority unless turn out was insanely high.  Most experts i've heard have kicked around numbers like 60 percent assuming turn out is somewhere between 50 and 70 percent.  And even that's not sure. 

[Barquentine]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Most experts i've heard have kicked around numbers like 60 percent assuming turn out is somewhere between 50 and 70 percent.  And even that's not sure. 

Isn't that what I said? The problem with 50%+1?

The other problem is provinces, specifically Quebec, can keep having referendums on separation and even if the no side wins repeatedly, the yes side only needs to win once.

[August1991]

On 5/29/2026 at 10:02 AM, Barquentine said:

So imagine. The rule being touted is 50% plus one. If the separatists won by that slim majority where would they be?

Could they secede with half the population against it? I would think you'd need at least 60%, possibly more to even consider it.

And they are not simply trying to take a province out of Canada, they are trying to take Canada out of that province, not something they would have

the power to do just because of a vote.

And of course the big question: For what? Cutting off their nose to spite their face?

At least Quebec has an historical argument.

 

What is a federal state?

===

Our federal constitution simply ensures that we have two federal languages.

No more.

 

Edited Thursday at 01:43 AM by August1991

[Barquentine]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

Our federal constitution simply ensures that we have two federal languages.

No more.

Just an AI synopsis:

Canada's constitution is the supreme law of the country. It is not a single document but a combination of written texts, including the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as unwritten conventions. It dictates the structure of the government and protects individual rights. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The constitution's foundational framework relies on a few core components:

• The Constitution Act, 1867: Formerly known as the British North America Act, this document established Canada as a self-governing federal dominion. It outlines the structure of the government (the Senate, House of Commons, and the courts) and divides powers between the federal and provincial levels. For example, federal jurisdictions include criminal law and national defense, while provinces handle education, healthcare, and property rights. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• The Constitution Act, 1982: This Act "patriated" the constitution, meaning it brought Canada's highest laws under complete Canadian control, ending the need for British parliamentary approval. Crucially, it established the amending formula, recognized Aboriginal and treaty rights, and introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [1, 2, 3]
• The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: This document guarantees fundamental rights to all Canadians, including freedom of expression, mobility rights, democratic rights (voting), legal rights, and equality