The process for Alberta’s fall referendum was a mess from day one, and it only got worse as time passed. The Chief Electoral Officer made no secret of his displeasure with the entire affair, and confusion reigned at every step of the campaign. Direct democracy has merit and could be a regular part of policy-making in Alberta’s future. Unfortunately, the 2026 referendum soured the public appetite for future votes. Rather than let this venture into direct democracy die as a failed experiment, the government should be examining what went wrong and correcting things so it can be a tool used to garner public mandates in the future.Governments are inclined to dump an initiative when it has gone awry rather than try to correct it. An example of this was the Alberta government’s terrible handling of the provincial pension plan issue.The citizen initiative aspect of the Elections Act and the regulations associated with it must be cleaned up and clarified. Lukaszuk talked out of both sides of his mouth, claiming that he wanted to initiate a vote in the legislature at times and claiming he wanted a referendum at others. It should be clear from the outset what any petitioning is for. The bar for initiating a referendum has been raised financially, with a large deposit required now to reduce frivolous petitioning. But there are other changes needed. There must be clarity on identification requirements for people signing petitions and what will be done to verify signatures once they are submitted. A massive number of signatures were declined by Elections Alberta with both the Stay Free Alberta petition and Corb Lund’s anti-coal mining petition, and the reasons used felt arbitrary and confusing.The indigenous consultation requirement must be fought vigorously in court, and that is ongoing. The creeping trend of giving indigenous chiefs a de facto veto over all political initiatives must be halted, and that includes with citizens’ initiatives.Going forward, there must be a limited number of questions put to the ballot in any one exercise. The dog’s breakfast of questions put to Albertans on October 19 created confusion and led to campaigns encouraging people to support or oppose entire blocs of questions rather than making decisions on each individual question. The voting numbers indicate that many voters made their choices question by question, which is a good thing. But it caused longer lines at polling stations and a messy campaign..The lesson learned from Quebec’s 1995 referendum was apparently lost. The ill-phrased question put to Quebecers prompted the creation of the Clarity Act. That act only applies to questions on provincial independence, but its principles should be applied to all referendum questions. The questions posed to Albertans on October 19 were convoluted, long, and unclear at times. When asking people to vote yes or no, the question should be straightforward with little room for interpretation.The roles and abilities of third-party advertisers must be laid out and defined better. Alberta left campaigning in the hands of third-party advertisers while setting fundraising limitations upon them and barring them from participating as scrutineers in the process. Meanwhile, political parties could campaign without limits, and only two of them were allowed to appoint scrutineers. The clown-show of pretending the Forever Canada campaign was an embarrassment for Elections Alberta and discredited the institution.On top of all of that, the government itself spent $4 million in tax dollars to campaign on one side of the first nine questions and the other on the tenth. Is the intention to allow citizens to make the choice or for the government to affirm what it already wants to do? I think we know the answer to that question. If the government wants to make a policy change, it should just do it. Referendums should remain in the hands of citizens. And those votes should be binding.Another mistake was allowing anybody to use mail-in ballots for any reason at any time. Special ballots have long been available, but people had to sign a declaration that they wouldn’t be available during regular voting times. By removing that requirement, the government invited a flood of mail-in ballots, which contributed to overwhelming the count and robbed countless people of the ability to cast a secret ballot. The disparity in outcomes with the special ballots compared to ballots cast in person has raised serious doubts about the integrity of the system.Trust is essential in an electoral system, and the recent referendum eroded it. Faith in the system was hit, and it will lead to lower participation in general elections along with scepticism about the results.Most of the mess with the referendum appeared to be due to Elections Alberta being ill-managed and overwhelmed. These issues can be rectified, but they must be addressed sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that the affair left a good taste in the government’s mouth, and I suspect they won’t be eager to facilitate direct democracy further. We shouldn't let them shelve the concept.
