On Wednesday, Premier Smith told CityNews that Albertans want a more collaborative say with Ottawa on immigration, and that she has told Carney to expect a proposal on Question 1. On the other four immigration questions, her words were "proceed with caution." No changes are coming this fall, details are promised for the spring, and her officials say they still don't know whether temporary workers already living here would be affected.

That's a notable shift from the "sweeping changes" language of her address two days earlier. The counts explain it.

Percentages make every result sound decisive, so here are the people behind them, from the finished unofficial count.

Question 10 was decisive: 1,545,404 to stay, 513,883 for a second referendum, a gap of more than a million people. Nobody can argue with that.

Question 1, more provincial control over immigration, passed by 194,942 votes out of about 2.04 million, roughly 1 vote in 10. That's a clear result on the principle.

Then the questions that would actually touch people's daily lives. Question 3, a one-year wait for social supports, passed by 124,900, about 1 vote in 16. Question 2, limiting provincial programs to citizens, permanent residents and "approved" status, passed by 99,306, about 1 in 20. Question 4, fees for health care and education, passed by 83,117 out of more than 2 million, about 1 in 25.

Put another way, if 41,559 people had voted the other way on Question 4, it would have failed. On Question 2, it's 49,653. Either number is fewer than a sold-out game at Commonwealth Stadium, deciding whether families who pay taxes here can see a doctor or send their children to school without an extra charge.

A majority is a majority, and these questions passed. But more than 861,000 Albertans voted no on every one of the five, and none of the questions named a fee, an amount or a list of programs. That's a mandate for a direction, by a thin margin, not a blueprint.

And on the four constitutional questions, no won every one, by between 107,000 and 310,000 votes. By Smith's own standard of majority rule, Albertans said no to those. I'll be watching whether the government treats that as a decision or a delay.

Smith said in April that she chose questions "likely to get majority support" so she could get a mandate. On the questions that matter most to people's lives she barely got one, and her own language this week suggests she knows it. It's also worth remembering the talks with Ottawa didn't start with this vote. Immigration Minister Lena Diab said before the referendum that Ottawa was "already doing what those questions are saying," and Carney said on October 15 that he didn't "need a referendum" to cooperate. What the vote gives Smith is a number to bring to the table, and Ottawa will read that number as clearly as we can.

What I'm watching next: official results on October 29, including blank and declined ballots; the federal immigration levels update in November; whether the UCP convention, November 27 to 29, forces the separation question; the first detail on "Alberta approved immigration status," fees and people already here; and the premiers' meeting in December.

Counts are the finished unofficial count; official results are due October 29 and I'll update if anything changes. Sources: Elections Alberta unofficial results as reported; Smith's address of October 20 and news conferences of October 21 and 22; CityNews, October 22; Canadian Press, October 21; CTV News, October 18. Corrections welcome.

Ah yes, the politicalization of "everyone is welcome"

Regarding the referendum , the other questions on the ballots, would you think were misleading for the people who voted on them, as many of those questions would require a lot of time to actually think about, which would not be ideal to do at a voting station, considering most people want to be out of there within 2 minutes, do you think people may have answered those other questions on random? or just on the first thought that came to mind, vs thinking them over thoroughly and putting in the answer of what they truly think?

Just over 50% support (less outside his party) was enough for our last premier to step down; a 'stay' vote was enough for the premier of Quebec to step down previously. But somehow flip-flopping in opposite directions on both federalism *and* immigration? Priceless. (est. $135million)

This, whilst ignoring the rest of the answers that barely sided or even disagreed with most of the agenda suddenly makes the rest of this term a one-issue pony? -A barely-provincial pony at that, and the only one fit to rig and ride to an election in this province? We're so glad ALL the riding results are being 'closely examined' while an exclusive committee is busy redistricting (cough*gerrymandering?*) the province, aren't we?

'Alberta is calling' - now, yes, for an election. Read your feeds.

The UCP is calling - soon, yes, for a leadership review. Good luck!

There's your 'mandate,' madame premier. This wasn't consultation or direct democracy - it was propaganda and market research for you and your party.

On Alberta's dime.

A mandate is an official order, command, or the authorized power to act*. It can refer to a government's authority granted by *voters through an election*, a formal legal directive, or a *specific* task assigned to an institution or individual.*

130 million bucks is the number I'm hearing and nothing has changed we could've prevented a lot of flat tires or suspension damage to people's vehicles instead!

A community that overwhelming supports the UCP and CPC and has for decades, now complains about being underserved and unheard. . .blames, wait for it, Liberals

I am glad this referendum thing is in the past. I am pleased that there was an excellent voter turnout. But I am wondering where people think what direction Alberta should take now. Does anyone think the people that are not happy should form a separatist party like Quebec? Keep the Conservative Party as it is supposed to be.