If I were to rank democratic instruments, I would put referendums at the bottom of the list. Quite aside from the fact there is another instrument—citizen assemblies—that properly structured can achieve the same goal but is superior in all aspects, referendums have serious weaknesses.

For example, they tend to contain a high ignorance component. Some citizens will research the issue, think it through calmly, and make a rational decision. Many won’t.

An example is the infamous Brexit referendum in Britain. How many of those casting a vote understood the economic ramifications of leaving the EU? A small minority I suspect. Some would vote Leave solely because they objected to buying their beer in litres.

And referendums tend to be highly divisive, creating an atmosphere of us and them, winners and losers, breeding hostility in the process. They are the hammer of majority rule.

Then there’s often the problem of wording. In the 1995 separation referendum in Quebec, a CBC-Southam News poll indicated that almost fifty per cent of Quebeckers thought the referendum would allow them to vote for a sovereign country while almost the same number thought it wouldn’t.

That brings us to the question to be put to Albertans in a referendum on separation the Smith government has scheduled for October. The question asks: “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?”

Note the conjunction “or.” Its presence means there are two questions here: do you want the province to just stay in Canada or do you want a referendum on separation. Two contrary questions.

According to an Angus-Reid survey, over half of Albertans find the question “confusing.“ As indeed it is. While 60 percent indicated they would answer No to this question, if the question was simply Stay or Go, 67 percent would vote Stay. That’s no small difference.

The Clarity Act, which outlines the rules for a province to secede, requires a “clear question.” This isn’t it. One senses the potential for yet another referral to the courts.

The premier could have just accepted Justice Shaina Leonard’s ruling that her government hadn’t done its homework and revisited the whole process with her separatist base. She has, after all, bent over backwards to smooth the path for them so far.

Instead she attacks the court, calling the justice’s ruling “anti-democratic” and a “legal mistake,” which accomplishes little aside from boosting the separatists self-righteousness. Indigenous rights are dismissed in the process. Her approach is as divisive as it is confusing.

Not surprisingly, the Angus-Reid survey showed that a solid majority of Albertans think Premier Smith has handled the issue poorly. She has, at least, said she will accept the result of her referendum. But, if the result is as confusing as the question, who knows where she will take that.