Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 382 posts

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#271

Post by chaostheory »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #29
petcat wrote: post #15

10% of the population produces nearly 20% of the country's GDP. That kind of lopsided representation is dangerous breeding ground for contempt, so this kind of thing is not really surprising. Will be interesting to see where it goes. Nobody thought there was any realistic chance of the UK leaving the EU either...

By that framing you are saying that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver should also all seek secession. Likewise, you could say that NYC and LA should singularly secede from America by that same logic. It doesn't track. There is no legal precedent. Alberta as an entity did not exist beyond Canada.

Canada is a confederation/confederacy. Ie your central government is weak and your provinces are strong. They can leave just like Quebec. Quebec has to be bribed to stay.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#272

Post by triceratops »

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #263
triceratops wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out "Voting with your feet" is an option available to almost everyone except North Koreans.

It’s also a very anti-democratic option whether taken voluntarily or forced. When you leave you cut all important ties to the polity, you surrender your ability to participate in democratic processes and you revoke control over yourself and your property. It’s the nearest thing to direct violence you can do without crossing that line

> When you leave you cut all important ties to the polity, you surrender your ability to participate in democratic processes and you revoke control over yourself and your property. It’s the nearest thing to direct violence you can do without crossing that line

If that's true then isn't it better individuals do this "almost violence" only to themselves, of their own volition? Rather than impose it on everyone living in the territory? Committing "almost violence" against others, for no fault of theirs, doesn't become fair just because it was voted on, right?

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#273

Post by triceratops »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #266
triceratops wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out "Voting with your feet" is an option available to almost everyone except North Koreans.

How does one draw new political borders that way? There is practically zero unclaimed land.

You move someplace that aligns with your preferences.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#274

Post by triceratops »

michaelscott wrote: post #223
triceratops wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out "Voting with your feet" is an option available to almost everyone except North Koreans.

It's actually not available to most people that live in any third world country, otherwise migration would be significantly higher than it already is. Regardless, "voting with your feet" is an individual action. Voting at home is a collective one, representing the will of not just you but the people from the place that you come from and were born into. Only one of those reflects the ideals of democracy, if that's rea…

> It's actually not available to most people that live in any third world country

Well sure it is. It isn't easy. There's a difference between available and easy.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#276

Post by Marsymars »

ryandrake wrote: post #252
Aachen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense to me. They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! We can't know what they want if they don't or can't vote. Putting "they voted yes" in their mouth sounds insulting to me, but I'm an outsider to the UK so maybe it's wrong…

If you choose not to vote, then you are implicitly voting for "whatever ends up winning."

It's conceptually pretty weird to have a mental model where the single vote that brings one side to 50%+1 implicitly flips millions of other votes.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#277

Post by mig39 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #201
cf100clunk wrote: post #98

Some numbers to consider: ~465,000 legally verified signatories to the federalist petition to declare Alberta permanently part of Canada ~360,000 status First Nations persons within Alberta ~330,000 legally unverified signatories to the separatist petition to hold a referendum to separate from Canada First Nations have successfully argued in court that as consultations with them are required by the Canadian Constitut…

What is a consultation? That sounds like a vague ill-defined veto over ever making changes. I'm very open to tribal sovereignty in deciding what whether to remain in in Canada, but that should apply to tribal territory, not holding the majority of the population of the territory hostage.

I think you'll need to look at the constitution of Canada (section 35) and the legally-binding treaties that have been signed with indigenous Canadians. There's no "tribal" territory. It's all treaty territory.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#278

Post by bonesss »

cf100clunk wrote: post #164
swader999 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are already separate first nations not joined to Canada or Alberta. I don't understand why Alberta not wanting to participate in Federalism anymore is an issue.

> They are already separate first nations not joined to Canada or Alberta They are part of Canada. Treaties 6, 7, and 8 clearly ceded indigenous lands to the Crown, and the Indian Act spells out the relationship between First Nations and Canada. Further, the Constitution Act, 1982, contains Section 25 of the Charter Of Rights And Freedoms articulating ''Aboriginal And Treaty Rights''

I’m not sure what’s more silly-fun: the idea of angry separatists sloooowly learning how their actual country is put together, or a bunch of angry separatists trying to pitch to First Nations representatives that, no really bro, this time they should totally trust their deals.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#279

Post by Broken_Hippo »

babypuncher wrote: post #233
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you make sure that most, if not all adults can vote, it won't show it. If you only have 45% of your population votes, regardless of reason, you aren't actually getting the public opinion.

If people choose not to vote, then clearly their opinion on the issue wasn't very strong to begin with.

That still means you do not get actual public opinion. Public opinion doesn't consist of only strong opinions.

You seem to think that voting is a simple choice of "do it or don't" and it really isn't that simple.

You need little restrictions. For example, not every country takes away voting rights from prisoners or folks previously convicted as a felon. Some places are pretty lenient to pregnant folks, sick people, etc. When my mother was pregnant with my sister, due around voting day, they nearly didn't let her vote absentee. She argued and got to vote but how many people were just denied in this situation? It would be a non-issue in some places. It wasn't that she didn't have an opinion - she was just nearing the time for freaking birth.

When I moved to Norway from the US, I no longer had to deal with voter registration. Once I lived here 3 years, I could vote in local elections. They just send me a voting card. Voting is easy, can be done in multiple locations over a period of a few weeks. So long as I had the card, no ID needed. (most folks keep their address updated for multiple reasons, so getting it isn't a big issue for me, anyway).

Any barriers you have to voting - like the registration system in the US, inflexible voting times, or very strict voter id laws - means that some folks won't be able to vote even if they want to. Barriers that make it difficult for groups of folks to vote is just a way for the state to control the election instead of the people voting with their conscience.

21 countries have compulsory voting laws, on the other hand.

And you can't say that a voter's opinion is a strong one, just that they vote. So many folks vote by just voting with the party they chose. That's not a strong opinion. That's just voting, and no one is checking motivations to see.

Post reply on HN