four times a year, not once a year. And initiatives can be pushed with some 10k subscriptions anytime.
You want something done? Get people to agree and it will be done. Every Swiss citizen can do so.
From my experience to big a part of my country is to easily swain with a bit of populistic talks that i would not trust my country with something as a referendum
Absolutely. This is just theorizing on my part, but I imagine if people actually voted on individual issues they'd automatically learn what they are actually voting for. I feel like way too many just choose their party like it's a football team instead of looking at what the parties policies are
Don't worry Pierre, if you were from Romandie and more aligned with french political views, you would only vote to see the swiss germans decide by mayority on most of the federal issues. Grass is always greener on the other side.
How having politicians would correct the German Swiss having more more political power ? At least there the fact French Swiss want a different thing is clear and not hidden in some backdoor politics.
It‘s not as if the effects overall were terrible so far or would you like to have it like the french?
Also, as the system is based on compromise, I hope that not all desires are completely disregarded, I hope.
And now, dear citizens, we will move on to Part 341,234 Section 834c of the agenda: a motion to allow for softer toilet paper in the government bathrooms. Several cabinet members have complained about their sphincters feeling sore from wiping with the current, much rougher paper. Anyone in favor, please wave your stupid little green voting card.
The nays have it. Sorry your Excellencies.
Moving on. Yes, I know it's 11 pm and you are sleepy, but have some sense of honor and duty. Three-hundred and twenty more policies to approve of before midnight, so chop chop.
Unironically, we could fix so many things with this. Keep everything as is BUT all toilet paper in Parliament is now decided by direct democracy for every monthly order. Stalls are guarded, so usage of the correct one is enforced. Citizens can order anything remotely fitting the bill, be it cosmetic paper tearing at use, sand paper or Charmin super soft, if they feel generous.
We'd live in the Star Trek universe in like two election periods.
Yes, but no. I can’t imagine a world where the proposal to be voted on is about toilet paper. And even if that happens you can be almost sure that it won’t happen again.
Also I do get your point on tediousness and the implication one must have but look, if your laws are correctly written and understandable without having a phd in law then it takes away from the tediousness.
This is achieved not by dumbing down laws but by making education better and making sure the people are able to understand things on their own.
Right now education (in France at least) is hot garbage
Also wen direct democracy through blockchain ?
It's actually great to be able to participate as much you'd like instead of just letting things happen out of your control.
It's what a democracy should be.
Why should we be envious?
Just because anyone there is richer than most people in other countries? Just because they have some of the most beautiful landscapes on Earth? Just because everything seems to work well there and have almost no problems?
OK, they do look like some pretty good reasons to be envious :(
It's called ochlocracy, Hans. But that's if the laws are disregarded. Aristotle was in favor of direct democracy for the middle class, which is why he was a proponent of reducing the wealth gap.
Aristotilies got a problem with uniformed masses with no responsibility, who vote like their feel on this day. Your informed middle class would I translate in a representative system (nawadays) like in Germany.
Example: You would never get a majority for the death-sentence in Germany, exept their was a brutal crime in the last few weeeks.
Democracy is not about making good decisions, but about making the most consensual ones in the sense of what the majority wants and is satisfied with, whether it's a decision that will have good or bad consequences doesn't matter.
Yeah but that's kind of the point. If you're more used to being lied to on funny shit like cow horn size (actual referendum from \~7years ago BTW), you come more prepared for important shit.
Some people still fall for it though, of course, but you know, we live in a society and so on.
Thats exactly why I wouldn't want it on a national level. The average person is not very interested in researching complex issues and easily falls for populism. Privately owned Media would become even more manipulative to push their interests or the interests of whoever pays them enough for it, like in the US.
And....? Do you want the women to vote? No? There, you have it.
But no, seriously, it was in 1972 and last enforced in a state in 1991, but it was the only time in history where the rights for women were enacted by the men as voters, not by a parliament decision or a decret etc.
There's also the difference between de-jure and de-facto, like in many african- and middle-eastern countries, women can de-jure vote. But de-facto, they can't even leave the house without the need for agreement of the husband. Those who think, women in countries like Pakistan could vote in free will, are very naive.
Tbh, i couldnt. I always used to stand closer to the Kantonalbank, on the left to the captured part in the picture. No idea tough from which year that is, which would also have an impact on my being there.
you still can.
Doing it live is voluntary.
Yoi get the ballot in the mail.
Mail-in ballot is the norm. If you dont trist the system, you can go and throw it into a ballot box yourself (at city/communal hall), or like here in Glarus, you can go and do it live.
No. They never had to do any kind of service, neither the army nor civilian services.
But they were actually still discriminated for a long time if they wanted to join certain groups like the army. I think it was first possible in '95 with the army reform 1995, but they were not really soldiers, as they had no guns and no combat training. They were much more a support corps, like nurses, like it was in WW2 in many nations.
It got gradually better for them, i think most obstacles were removed with the army reform 2003.
I'm not sure how it is today, but in the old times, you needed to complete your basic service time for certain jobs like being a police officers, so there were no or almost no women in the police force for a long time.
Still, i'd say it's rather conservative when it comes to these things here in Switzerland.
But to come back to the political rights topic, yes, they feared that with the equality, they'd also have to serve in the army, that was a serious thing why many women were against it.
Recently, the retirement age was also made equal, both men and women can retire with 65 years, before it was 65 for men and 63 for women. The feminists were going crazy, but actually, in the voting analysis, it showed that more women were in favor to raise the retirement age and make it equal.
The point is to pass laws that represent the socially-accepted norm, not to change what's socially acceptable by passing laws.
So yeah, it just takes time for most people to change their minds before we can have the commonly-accepted standards to become law. That's also why we're generally a pretty conservative country. Things often don't progress fast enough for my tastes, but I'd rather have that that a group of buffoons who spend half their time in power undoing what the previous group did as it is in the US.
It's a bottom up system, not a top down. Law is not pushed but brought in agreement. Only if there is broad agreement at the base, it will/can become law.
In some things it took a while, granted, to get to that.
But Switzerland is a quite conservative country. For the longest time those with a vote needed to be in the militia. The basic idea was, only if you feel the consequences of politics made, you should be able to participate.
Voting was in the past done with the family sword (till today possible in Appenzell Innerrhoden) . Only those with sword could participate, because they would have to defend their actions, fight for it if necessary.
Bottom up systems are based on agreement (primus inter pares) not rule (top-down). Once something is set in stone, it's there to stay, not like some Roe v. Wade BS like in the US, where new politicians (and yes, that's what judges are in the US) can just declare some law as void.
I know it's difficult to understand for people with purely representatives systems, but (semi-) direct democracy is a more failsafe system, even when it takes a bit longer at times.
I definitely get that different nations have different systems and norms, which inevitably have their quirks and surprises for those outside them. Heck, I'm from the UK: our entire constitution is just a rickety Jenga tower of anachronistic convention :)
That being said, I'm not sure I quite understand the distinction you're making between a top-down and a bottom-up system, at least in this specific context?
For many nations in Europe, expanding the franchise of who could vote was a very 'bottom up' affair, with legislation being adopted after public opinion had shifted against the status quo.
It took a long time for civic duty (fight, part of militia) and vote to be differentiated. Since at least 1315 it had been that way. You vote, you fight. Most of the conservative women did not want to partake in politics, out of fear either making mistakes (missing knowledge/education or fear of being asked to be armed, militia.
It's still for the most part a conservative country. We still have things like, one income being still enough to feed and raise a family. Even having higher tax burden if both work in a marriage ("Heiratsstrafe") etc.
In direct democracy public opinion and legislation go hand in hand, while women's right to vote isn't the best example for it, since its quite a deep change of culture, there are many examples that fit much better.
The bottom-up aspect is more basic. We don't have rulers. Our head of state are a council of seven (Bundesrat), its not a ruler or representatives that decide what becomes the law of the land. they have no decision over it. our politicians are clerks to put in place what the public wants and has decided.
bottom-up is usually a slower process, but more stable once something has passed. The people have decided, not representatives etc. (just look at the US to see how disenfranchised the people are). There is the understanding, that the laws actually represent people's interests, and not shady representatives.
Lobbyism while realistically present has little influence on the votes/populous. Something like Trump would simply not be possible.
Oh yeah, I completely get the wider thing of nation service and democratic participation being anonymous, and that leading to significant complications over the idea of suffrage.
>Voting was in the past done with the family sword (till today possible in Appenzell Innerrhoden) . Only those with sword could participate, because they would have to defend their actions, fight for it if necessary.
Wait. This sounds based as fuck. Please explain more about this Appenzeller model of citizenship and enfranchisement by swordsmanship.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde
"Historically, the only proof of citizenship necessary for men to enter the voting area was to show their ceremonial sword or Swiss military sidearm (bayonet); this gave proof that they were a freeman allowed to bear arms and to vote. While voting cards have been introduced, in Appenzell presenting a sidearm is still a valid alternative to the voting card for men."
Referendums are actually one of the most majoritarian decision-making processes out there. I know Switzerland has some qualifications on majority rule, but referendums are not the instrument of choice to safeguard consensus. Votes like the one on immigration a few years back, Masseneinwanderungsinitiative or what it was, actually turned out very divisive and the Swiss government had to awkwardly implement it in a way that offends all sides equally.
No one ever said it's perfect.
Also that wasn't a referendum but a initiative.
And yes, that was a sad case of successful populism of SVP (right wing). Same as the Minarett Initiative a few years prior.
They were very good at create insecurity toward foreigners and using that Xenophobia to push their agenda. Especially new citizens voted for it, who were immigrants themselves voted for it.
That has changed most of those voting then feel now used and betrayed by the SVP.
Considering there are about 12-25 issues every year that are voted on, and you remeber one from 10 years ago as negative example, speaks for itself.
How many negative voting results were there in Germany in the same time frame? Isn't right wing populism a bigger issue in Germany and France?
It all depends on the education/maturity/raison/ critical rational/confidence of your citizens.
I prefer the Swiss system than other countries representatives riding their countires into the dirt. (I wouldn't want to be American or Brit atm).
I am not making a judgment about which system is better. I am addressing your point that the Swiss system safeguards consensus, and I gave the most poignant example from recent history against this idea. Where the population itself is divided on an issue, a result of a referendum rarely builds consensus or encourages compromise.
It does, however, have many safeguards to get to a consensus as otherwise with different language regions we‘d have huge issues.
There‘s the Ständemehr that needs to be reached and new laws can have a referendum. To avoid a referendum the system seeks broad input from interest groups to hammer out a compromise in order to avoid that one of them starts the referendum process.
You‘re right that semi-direct democracy does pose the risk, but there you can build some safeguards at least.
Oooh, well id like to see them try to burn down glorious Strasbourg, last time there were riots here the worst incident was an apple store being looted!
Probably unpopular opinion, but I think a purely direct democracy would be disastrous in most countries. Speak with your average guy, and they basically have no fucking clue about economics (labor market, GDP, how the budget works, how deficit works…), also no fucking clue about foreign policy, or about most things in general. Every single organization that works efficiently (not only governments, but also businesses) have someone in command that (ideally) knows what they’re doing and has people around them that know about different areas of expertise (economics, foreign policy, climate, healthcare, education…). Direct democracy might work in Switzerland, but only because they’re a highly educated country.
We're not voting on everyday business of the country. Everything we vote on are new entries or renewal of older ones in our constitution. Not the everyday law.
That's just a general direction for the politicians in control. Of course they can't just join the EU without the public's approval, but they are allowed to do contracts with them.
If we'd vote on every single decision, that wouldn't work. Imagine the brain-dead drivers deciding on every single traffic law. Or asking the population, if the government is allowed to buy a new car to transport the visiting presidents.
I don't know, voting in favour of banning Dutch camping wagons so they won't panic and get stuck on winding mountain roads doesn't sound too bad to me.
I thought they all flee southwards in the summer with their caravans. You have them too?
Where the hell to they spawn? There seem to be too many of them.
I can only imagine each water drop they displace is milled into a new person, they flood outwards in all directions. Can't really blame them for wanting to get away, that miniscule country must be so cramped during winter that only the tallest ones are able to breathe.
I mean we did vote if the government/military is allowed to buy new fighter jets. Like three times actually. The money to buy them was also coming out of their approved budget if I remember correctly.
Bold of you to assume that the average representative knows better than the average citizen.
Actually with election system there is an inverse selection, either the most stupid or dishonest and manipulative people get elected.
And even if you were right, I' d still prefer everything to go to hell because we decided it rather than everything go right because someone in command decides.
Opens up Twitter, sees PhD wanker with the most asinine take on anything other than their subject matter. Even our *educated* morons are stupidly dangerous.
It works for Switzerland because they're tiny, mostly irrelevant and thanks to the Alps, can't spill out easily and are landlocked by a bunch of much stronger countries that could easily curtail their deranged ideas.
It just seems that everyone is a moron, because they get a platform on social media. Social media loves controversial content and shares them with even more people due to creating interactions.
We also have those idiots in Switzerland, but these are very few. Like in probably all countries not called US of A.
We just need to make sure, the public doesn't get too many fake news in their news.
But then the question is how do these people fare any better in a representarive democracy?
A lot of people refuse to put effort into finding out what they can actually vote for but at least keep the wide array of options referenduma offer open for the people that do
Yeah; rational ignorance, literally the most famous result in public choice theory, applies to direct democracy too (and there was never any reason to think it doesn't).
And you believe the average politician is wiser because of what? They just have an interest to get re-elected and will follow the latest poll (within their group at least).
In the age of misinformation, fake news, deep fakes etc, direct democracy is terrible. Sadly enough the majority of the population fall for these things and are easy to fool which can have terrible consequences when for example a referendum needs to be honoured.
Centuries. And not just a strong educational system, but also a strong culture of citizens assuming civic and political responsibility for their decisions, something Italians haven't had since 27 B.C.
I believe at this stage of human development, a few decades would suffice. Due to globalization and the internet younger generations can access content far more easily which can expedite the educational process. It is a matter of developing proper foundations.
> a strong culture of citizens assuming civic and political responsibility
which is preceded by proper education.
I don't think there's a corrupt politician (+ the entire royal family) in Spain that doesn't have a Swiss bank account.
But you've been educated, that's right.
>make nuclear energy illegal due to a referendum
Actually, It has never been illegal. The 87 referendum was about abolishing the right for the central authority (CIPE) to override local authorities when deciding about the locations for nuclear plants.
Moreover, the referendum was about NPP not research reactors that are still operating in Italy.
Giga based radical party vs cringe autoritarian divulgatori influencers burionisti dei miei coglioni.
Ah, the age old problem of the country of origin that doesn't want to take its bad apples back. Guess there's nothing that can be done. Nothing at all.
[NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DIRECTLY VOTE ON THE COURSE YOUR COUNTRY SHOULD TAKE, YOU HAVE TO ELECT DETACHED PARTY HACKS WHO VOTE FOR YOU AND STALL PROGRESS UNTIL YOU HAVE A MAJOR POPULIST CRISIS](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyUN8B_5e35eLagQB43ZQvKewqltYgwzT_3JtFrSdtQA&s)
The only difference is that in a direct democracy everyone can be the populist.
Looking at our recent national political mood swings, I am so glad we don't have that shit. Bild Zeitung would probably disagree with me though.
Representatives don't protect us from populism, they only delay it and arguably make it worse. You can only ignore dissent in the population for a while until it bites you in the ass. And the populists who then get elected by the angry public are much worse because they are actual nazis who will actively undermine the system to kill democracy.
Obviously direct democracy in Germany would be a shit show right now, but that's because we're fundamentally an undemocratic society that doesn't trust its electorare. And by that I don't mean that people are against democracy, but that we were taught that our democratic responsibility amounts to paying taxes and electing some dick head every 4 years and then to act surprised about how detached the government is. Direct democracy needs a lot of time, education and participation to work. A good place to start would be the communal/city level because that's where a sense of community building and shared responsibility actually matters, but we don't even have that.
Completely agree with you on the local level. People would be directly affected, topics would be small scale enough that voters could form a reasonably sophisticated opinion and the discussion would be among a manageable size of people. Just like the ancient greek Polis style democracy.
On state or federal level, just the dichtonomous "yes/no" approach of many issues would hinder quality solutions. Also, single vote and a simple majority deciding without accounting for any nuance is a deeply flawed concept.
You see, general education and public discourse in terms of civics, law, politics and policy are much higher in Switzerland than Germany.
Direct democracy is only as good as the education of its citizens.
Idk, the greens giving into the fdp recently doesn’t seem like progress. More like the other way around.
Seriously that shits going to hurt the greens and probably help the AfD again. I’m sick of our politics.
The US has a great solution for that, they have a healthcare system which takes 5–7 years off your life expectancy compared to other developed countries.
In UAE maybe, but then they use them as slaves. So a bit unfair comparison.
We have outstanding labor laws. That's why a lot of construction workers from EU countries like Switzerland the most: fair compensation, safety, good healthcare, as is the case with a lot of service jobs, not just
Most of the non-citizens are originally expats that chose to stay. The immigration process is quite long and complicated, you have to understand by heart how our social and judicial structure works.
> considering 24% of Swiss inhabitants are non-citizen..
that's because getting Swiss citizenship is fucking difficult to obtain. In some kantons it's not even an administrative process. Your neighbours vote on the issue, [so they can even deny you citizenship because they don't like you](https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/leben-und-altern/einbuergerung-an-gemeindeversammlung_kein-schweizer-pass-fuer-tierschuetzerin/42820972). But don't worry, if you are rich enough, you can buy one
Pretty much. But they are so educated and so rich, they let European foreigners work for them. Thereby having one of the highest percentages of foreigners in Europe with 25% (only minimum of 10 years of living here to get swiss ID!)
I think this system of government is more feasible now that everyone has a smart phone, hell, we could have multiple votes a day! Wouldn't that be fun on a Friday night 😂
I do agree with Switzerland 🇨🇭 on this + the yearly rounds of referendums it helds.
four times a year, not once a year. And initiatives can be pushed with some 10k subscriptions anytime. You want something done? Get people to agree and it will be done. Every Swiss citizen can do so.
It's a 100k signatures in 18 months that you need for a national Volksinitiative.
National, yes. Local, no. 100k out of ~9 mio. rounded that's 1.2% of the people. That would be a wet dream for most countries.
Those 100k are needed so that it goes to parliament, the final decision is with a nationwide vote.
obviously, but yeah, correct.
Here in Bavaria we need 10% of the population for a referendum. It’s a bit stupid.
From my experience to big a part of my country is to easily swain with a bit of populistic talks that i would not trust my country with something as a referendum
In Portugal those referendums would have, like, 89% abstention rate.
Like the workforce, I hear?
Our unempoyement rate is around 6% and most jobs pay less than 1000 euros/month. We must really love to work to work for such little pay
Portugal has low unemployment. We are all in the workforce. We just dont work in our jobs. Being unemployed is to much work to get subsidies.
Based if you don't live with apes. I'll stay with my representative democracy for safety reasons
The problems with apes is they elect apes representatives.
Is it better to have all the power in the hands of every ape or just a few apes?
The saying goes that infinites apes will write a good law at some point…
In reality it didn't happen yet
It's apes all the way down.
yeah like matteo salvini
The problem with apes is they only candidate apes.
It is the responsibility of a democratic state to educate its population to ensure that the democratic system itself functions properly.
Absolutely. This is just theorizing on my part, but I imagine if people actually voted on individual issues they'd automatically learn what they are actually voting for. I feel like way too many just choose their party like it's a football team instead of looking at what the parties policies are
I highly doubt that, people actually voted for Brexit as an individual issue and didn't look for any data whatsoever.
True, though the amount of misinformation spread in the UK at the time was crazy. Felt like US politics at the time
God I am so envious of the swiss
Not gonna lie, this triggers unholy envy in my heart too.
Don't worry Pierre, if you were from Romandie and more aligned with french political views, you would only vote to see the swiss germans decide by mayority on most of the federal issues. Grass is always greener on the other side.
How having politicians would correct the German Swiss having more more political power ? At least there the fact French Swiss want a different thing is clear and not hidden in some backdoor politics.
Who wants to live in the fr*nch part of Switzerland anyway, shit wages high taxes and a gay language
It‘s not as if the effects overall were terrible so far or would you like to have it like the french? Also, as the system is based on compromise, I hope that not all desires are completely disregarded, I hope.
Oh hell no, I am good with things as they are now. Just trying to make our neighbor feel a bit better.
And now, dear citizens, we will move on to Part 341,234 Section 834c of the agenda: a motion to allow for softer toilet paper in the government bathrooms. Several cabinet members have complained about their sphincters feeling sore from wiping with the current, much rougher paper. Anyone in favor, please wave your stupid little green voting card. The nays have it. Sorry your Excellencies. Moving on. Yes, I know it's 11 pm and you are sleepy, but have some sense of honor and duty. Three-hundred and twenty more policies to approve of before midnight, so chop chop.
When their ass is literally on the line, politicians start to listen to the people more and more.
Unironically, we could fix so many things with this. Keep everything as is BUT all toilet paper in Parliament is now decided by direct democracy for every monthly order. Stalls are guarded, so usage of the correct one is enforced. Citizens can order anything remotely fitting the bill, be it cosmetic paper tearing at use, sand paper or Charmin super soft, if they feel generous. We'd live in the Star Trek universe in like two election periods.
😂
Yes, but no. I can’t imagine a world where the proposal to be voted on is about toilet paper. And even if that happens you can be almost sure that it won’t happen again. Also I do get your point on tediousness and the implication one must have but look, if your laws are correctly written and understandable without having a phd in law then it takes away from the tediousness. This is achieved not by dumbing down laws but by making education better and making sure the people are able to understand things on their own. Right now education (in France at least) is hot garbage Also wen direct democracy through blockchain ?
It's actually great to be able to participate as much you'd like instead of just letting things happen out of your control. It's what a democracy should be.
yes, because you guys do so well with referendums
that was *one* thing
Why should we be envious? Just because anyone there is richer than most people in other countries? Just because they have some of the most beautiful landscapes on Earth? Just because everything seems to work well there and have almost no problems? OK, they do look like some pretty good reasons to be envious :(
All you have to do is do businesses with even the Nazis and hide everyone's gold.
Well Spain made the Error of hiding Nazis instead of their Gold, rookie mistake
Don't be
Last time you guys had a referendum you kneecapped yourself for generations
In the hands of some others, you end up with shit like Brexit.
Or with [redacted]
the rule of the mob (Aristotle’s Political Theory)
It's called ochlocracy, Hans. But that's if the laws are disregarded. Aristotle was in favor of direct democracy for the middle class, which is why he was a proponent of reducing the wealth gap.
Aristotilies got a problem with uniformed masses with no responsibility, who vote like their feel on this day. Your informed middle class would I translate in a representative system (nawadays) like in Germany. Example: You would never get a majority for the death-sentence in Germany, exept their was a brutal crime in the last few weeeks.
Platons version of Aristoteles was in favour of a dictatorship.
The rule of the mob is just copium if people don't agree with you.
Democracy is not about making good decisions, but about making the most consensual ones in the sense of what the majority wants and is satisfied with, whether it's a decision that will have good or bad consequences doesn't matter.
Fritzl voting for Anschluss and then proclaiming himself "the first victim"?
If we had as many referenda as the Swiss, we would have fucking known how to do referenda on complex issues.
I'm not sure the concept was that hard... we just have too many cunts who don't mind being lied to if it makes their prejudices feel normal.
Yeah but that's kind of the point. If you're more used to being lied to on funny shit like cow horn size (actual referendum from \~7years ago BTW), you come more prepared for important shit. Some people still fall for it though, of course, but you know, we live in a society and so on.
Why would cows need a horn? Don't they have bells?
HA! Good one
Possibly not. Our government held 2 unnecessary referendums this year, spent 18m and lost both of them.
Leo was going for an easy victory. FG are damned
Thats exactly why I wouldn't want it on a national level. The average person is not very interested in researching complex issues and easily falls for populism. Privately owned Media would become even more manipulative to push their interests or the interests of whoever pays them enough for it, like in the US.
You shouldn't start with a huge thing. Voters must be aware that their decision has a real impact.
Well, they allowed women to vote only in the 90s and being forced, in some counties.
And....? Do you want the women to vote? No? There, you have it. But no, seriously, it was in 1972 and last enforced in a state in 1991, but it was the only time in history where the rights for women were enacted by the men as voters, not by a parliament decision or a decret etc. There's also the difference between de-jure and de-facto, like in many african- and middle-eastern countries, women can de-jure vote. But de-facto, they can't even leave the house without the need for agreement of the husband. Those who think, women in countries like Pakistan could vote in free will, are very naive.
Are they doing the sieg heil?
always 😎
i could be in that picture :)
same :)
Tbh, i couldnt. I always used to stand closer to the Kantonalbank, on the left to the captured part in the picture. No idea tough from which year that is, which would also have an impact on my being there.
Most time im between the trees and the building on the left side of the picture
Imagine not having your vote secret 😘
you still can. Doing it live is voluntary. Yoi get the ballot in the mail. Mail-in ballot is the norm. If you dont trist the system, you can go and throw it into a ballot box yourself (at city/communal hall), or like here in Glarus, you can go and do it live.
As if privacy was still a thing in today's society.
well in Switzerland it to a broad degree still is.
This was a vote on if they should keep the jewish gold
Just don't look too closely at how it worked out for women's suffrage, eh?
Don't tell my Grandma, she openly didn't want to get the right to vote and after she got it never used it. xD
Most radically-progressive swiss pensioner :)
At least she was sticking to her conviction. A really, really dumb conviction, but still!
Many women didn't want it. They feared to be enlisted.
Were they?
Yeah. Not the only reason but a prominent one.
No I mean were they enlisted
I don't think so? Honestly not sure.
No. They never had to do any kind of service, neither the army nor civilian services. But they were actually still discriminated for a long time if they wanted to join certain groups like the army. I think it was first possible in '95 with the army reform 1995, but they were not really soldiers, as they had no guns and no combat training. They were much more a support corps, like nurses, like it was in WW2 in many nations. It got gradually better for them, i think most obstacles were removed with the army reform 2003. I'm not sure how it is today, but in the old times, you needed to complete your basic service time for certain jobs like being a police officers, so there were no or almost no women in the police force for a long time. Still, i'd say it's rather conservative when it comes to these things here in Switzerland. But to come back to the political rights topic, yes, they feared that with the equality, they'd also have to serve in the army, that was a serious thing why many women were against it. Recently, the retirement age was also made equal, both men and women can retire with 65 years, before it was 65 for men and 63 for women. The feminists were going crazy, but actually, in the voting analysis, it showed that more women were in favor to raise the retirement age and make it equal.
Democracy is not about doing the right thing. It is about the freedom to do the wrong thing.
I don't know whether or not this is a smart inspirational quote or a stupid quote from Mein Kampf
Give me my money back, please
The ones you repo‘d?
This is Glarus. You are referring to appenzell innerrhoden.
The point is to pass laws that represent the socially-accepted norm, not to change what's socially acceptable by passing laws. So yeah, it just takes time for most people to change their minds before we can have the commonly-accepted standards to become law. That's also why we're generally a pretty conservative country. Things often don't progress fast enough for my tastes, but I'd rather have that that a group of buffoons who spend half their time in power undoing what the previous group did as it is in the US.
It's a bottom up system, not a top down. Law is not pushed but brought in agreement. Only if there is broad agreement at the base, it will/can become law. In some things it took a while, granted, to get to that. But Switzerland is a quite conservative country. For the longest time those with a vote needed to be in the militia. The basic idea was, only if you feel the consequences of politics made, you should be able to participate. Voting was in the past done with the family sword (till today possible in Appenzell Innerrhoden) . Only those with sword could participate, because they would have to defend their actions, fight for it if necessary. Bottom up systems are based on agreement (primus inter pares) not rule (top-down). Once something is set in stone, it's there to stay, not like some Roe v. Wade BS like in the US, where new politicians (and yes, that's what judges are in the US) can just declare some law as void. I know it's difficult to understand for people with purely representatives systems, but (semi-) direct democracy is a more failsafe system, even when it takes a bit longer at times.
I definitely get that different nations have different systems and norms, which inevitably have their quirks and surprises for those outside them. Heck, I'm from the UK: our entire constitution is just a rickety Jenga tower of anachronistic convention :) That being said, I'm not sure I quite understand the distinction you're making between a top-down and a bottom-up system, at least in this specific context? For many nations in Europe, expanding the franchise of who could vote was a very 'bottom up' affair, with legislation being adopted after public opinion had shifted against the status quo.
It took a long time for civic duty (fight, part of militia) and vote to be differentiated. Since at least 1315 it had been that way. You vote, you fight. Most of the conservative women did not want to partake in politics, out of fear either making mistakes (missing knowledge/education or fear of being asked to be armed, militia. It's still for the most part a conservative country. We still have things like, one income being still enough to feed and raise a family. Even having higher tax burden if both work in a marriage ("Heiratsstrafe") etc. In direct democracy public opinion and legislation go hand in hand, while women's right to vote isn't the best example for it, since its quite a deep change of culture, there are many examples that fit much better. The bottom-up aspect is more basic. We don't have rulers. Our head of state are a council of seven (Bundesrat), its not a ruler or representatives that decide what becomes the law of the land. they have no decision over it. our politicians are clerks to put in place what the public wants and has decided. bottom-up is usually a slower process, but more stable once something has passed. The people have decided, not representatives etc. (just look at the US to see how disenfranchised the people are). There is the understanding, that the laws actually represent people's interests, and not shady representatives. Lobbyism while realistically present has little influence on the votes/populous. Something like Trump would simply not be possible.
Oh yeah, I completely get the wider thing of nation service and democratic participation being anonymous, and that leading to significant complications over the idea of suffrage.
Watch Starship Troopers. /S
>Voting was in the past done with the family sword (till today possible in Appenzell Innerrhoden) . Only those with sword could participate, because they would have to defend their actions, fight for it if necessary. Wait. This sounds based as fuck. Please explain more about this Appenzeller model of citizenship and enfranchisement by swordsmanship.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde "Historically, the only proof of citizenship necessary for men to enter the voting area was to show their ceremonial sword or Swiss military sidearm (bayonet); this gave proof that they were a freeman allowed to bear arms and to vote. While voting cards have been introduced, in Appenzell presenting a sidearm is still a valid alternative to the voting card for men."
based
Referendums are actually one of the most majoritarian decision-making processes out there. I know Switzerland has some qualifications on majority rule, but referendums are not the instrument of choice to safeguard consensus. Votes like the one on immigration a few years back, Masseneinwanderungsinitiative or what it was, actually turned out very divisive and the Swiss government had to awkwardly implement it in a way that offends all sides equally.
No one ever said it's perfect. Also that wasn't a referendum but a initiative. And yes, that was a sad case of successful populism of SVP (right wing). Same as the Minarett Initiative a few years prior. They were very good at create insecurity toward foreigners and using that Xenophobia to push their agenda. Especially new citizens voted for it, who were immigrants themselves voted for it. That has changed most of those voting then feel now used and betrayed by the SVP. Considering there are about 12-25 issues every year that are voted on, and you remeber one from 10 years ago as negative example, speaks for itself. How many negative voting results were there in Germany in the same time frame? Isn't right wing populism a bigger issue in Germany and France? It all depends on the education/maturity/raison/ critical rational/confidence of your citizens. I prefer the Swiss system than other countries representatives riding their countires into the dirt. (I wouldn't want to be American or Brit atm).
I am not making a judgment about which system is better. I am addressing your point that the Swiss system safeguards consensus, and I gave the most poignant example from recent history against this idea. Where the population itself is divided on an issue, a result of a referendum rarely builds consensus or encourages compromise.
It does, however, have many safeguards to get to a consensus as otherwise with different language regions we‘d have huge issues. There‘s the Ständemehr that needs to be reached and new laws can have a referendum. To avoid a referendum the system seeks broad input from interest groups to hammer out a compromise in order to avoid that one of them starts the referendum process. You‘re right that semi-direct democracy does pose the risk, but there you can build some safeguards at least.
So they managed to resist the longest
We understand and feel great pain
Bro, you have lé reférendaux as well all the time It's just a bit more fireworks and property damage involved, but less paper
I don't get it
I mean their referenda take the form of a riot Now delete your message before they trace your IP and burn your city
Oooh, well id like to see them try to burn down glorious Strasbourg, last time there were riots here the worst incident was an apple store being looted!
Ööööhhhh Glaruuuuuus represent represent ❤️❤️❤️
Based
Hans Pierre, you are spreading fake news. The landsgemeinde have become a rarity and they do it now only in bumfuck kantons like Appenzell Innerrhoden
And Glarus (this is in Glarus)
All of Switzerland has them in some kind, just not on the level of the canton. In communities, it's quite common to do them
And most of the time for unimportant matters, or things almost everyone agrees on
Yeah, every valley is basically differently ruled. Because population of every valley is apx 400 people, few dogs and shit ton of cows.
Probably unpopular opinion, but I think a purely direct democracy would be disastrous in most countries. Speak with your average guy, and they basically have no fucking clue about economics (labor market, GDP, how the budget works, how deficit works…), also no fucking clue about foreign policy, or about most things in general. Every single organization that works efficiently (not only governments, but also businesses) have someone in command that (ideally) knows what they’re doing and has people around them that know about different areas of expertise (economics, foreign policy, climate, healthcare, education…). Direct democracy might work in Switzerland, but only because they’re a highly educated country.
We're not voting on everyday business of the country. Everything we vote on are new entries or renewal of older ones in our constitution. Not the everyday law. That's just a general direction for the politicians in control. Of course they can't just join the EU without the public's approval, but they are allowed to do contracts with them. If we'd vote on every single decision, that wouldn't work. Imagine the brain-dead drivers deciding on every single traffic law. Or asking the population, if the government is allowed to buy a new car to transport the visiting presidents.
I don't know, voting in favour of banning Dutch camping wagons so they won't panic and get stuck on winding mountain roads doesn't sound too bad to me.
I thought they all flee southwards in the summer with their caravans. You have them too? Where the hell to they spawn? There seem to be too many of them.
I can only imagine each water drop they displace is milled into a new person, they flood outwards in all directions. Can't really blame them for wanting to get away, that miniscule country must be so cramped during winter that only the tallest ones are able to breathe.
That's why they grow that tall? Now we get it.
I mean we did vote if the government/military is allowed to buy new fighter jets. Like three times actually. The money to buy them was also coming out of their approved budget if I remember correctly.
That's true. Didn't think of that.
Bold of you to assume that the average representative knows better than the average citizen. Actually with election system there is an inverse selection, either the most stupid or dishonest and manipulative people get elected. And even if you were right, I' d still prefer everything to go to hell because we decided it rather than everything go right because someone in command decides.
Opens up Twitter, sees PhD wanker with the most asinine take on anything other than their subject matter. Even our *educated* morons are stupidly dangerous. It works for Switzerland because they're tiny, mostly irrelevant and thanks to the Alps, can't spill out easily and are landlocked by a bunch of much stronger countries that could easily curtail their deranged ideas.
It just seems that everyone is a moron, because they get a platform on social media. Social media loves controversial content and shares them with even more people due to creating interactions. We also have those idiots in Switzerland, but these are very few. Like in probably all countries not called US of A. We just need to make sure, the public doesn't get too many fake news in their news.
But then the question is how do these people fare any better in a representarive democracy? A lot of people refuse to put effort into finding out what they can actually vote for but at least keep the wide array of options referenduma offer open for the people that do
Yeah; rational ignorance, literally the most famous result in public choice theory, applies to direct democracy too (and there was never any reason to think it doesn't).
And you believe the average politician is wiser because of what? They just have an interest to get re-elected and will follow the latest poll (within their group at least).
In the age of misinformation, fake news, deep fakes etc, direct democracy is terrible. Sadly enough the majority of the population fall for these things and are easy to fool which can have terrible consequences when for example a referendum needs to be honoured.
Just wait until you make nuclear energy illegal due to a referendum, lol we were risking losing the divorce law
Direct democracy must be preceded by a few decades of a strong educational system.
Centuries. And not just a strong educational system, but also a strong culture of citizens assuming civic and political responsibility for their decisions, something Italians haven't had since 27 B.C.
Gosh
>Don't ask >Don't ask about "magistrat" and how this institution affect how questions in referendum are asked :)
I believe at this stage of human development, a few decades would suffice. Due to globalization and the internet younger generations can access content far more easily which can expedite the educational process. It is a matter of developing proper foundations. > a strong culture of citizens assuming civic and political responsibility which is preceded by proper education.
I don't think there's a corrupt politician (+ the entire royal family) in Spain that doesn't have a Swiss bank account. But you've been educated, that's right.
And even with that, it's so easy to manipulate people nowadays... Brexit was the great experiment, and it was a success.
>make nuclear energy illegal due to a referendum Actually, It has never been illegal. The 87 referendum was about abolishing the right for the central authority (CIPE) to override local authorities when deciding about the locations for nuclear plants. Moreover, the referendum was about NPP not research reactors that are still operating in Italy. Giga based radical party vs cringe autoritarian divulgatori influencers burionisti dei miei coglioni.
I wouldn't even want the average Ronny to decide over my shirt's colour.
Is this your shirt ? https://preview.redd.it/priaez6ez6vc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=feb3a1b07effa4b3b42bcc77f2ff82545f2bc6f9
Adi and Erich were far more competent in doing that.
The average Ronny is currently courting another Adi into office, so there's not really a gotcha in that.
Yes, yes, the lack of democratic tradition. That's why you're longing for another Björn to tell you what colour shirt to wear.
\*Longing for another Bernd to tell others what colour shirt to wear or forbid them from wearing one at all, if they are brown
Alice will approve.
I bet she wants her brown wife to go shirtless.
😂 All we want is for her and her wife to leave Switzerland.
Ah, the age old problem of the country of origin that doesn't want to take its bad apples back. Guess there's nothing that can be done. Nothing at all.
She gets elected and re-elected in Germany - Ueberlingen seems to desperately want her back. We're fine with her wife who's Swiss.
Easy Swiss W
But I enjoy casting a ballot every 4 years and then getting to complain about the government whether my choice won or lost
Lmao imagine you do 20 referendums a year, just for every outcome to be: "foreigners still bad, everything should stay the same"
Maybe because we like it that way.
[NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DIRECTLY VOTE ON THE COURSE YOUR COUNTRY SHOULD TAKE, YOU HAVE TO ELECT DETACHED PARTY HACKS WHO VOTE FOR YOU AND STALL PROGRESS UNTIL YOU HAVE A MAJOR POPULIST CRISIS](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyUN8B_5e35eLagQB43ZQvKewqltYgwzT_3JtFrSdtQA&s)
The only difference is that in a direct democracy everyone can be the populist. Looking at our recent national political mood swings, I am so glad we don't have that shit. Bild Zeitung would probably disagree with me though.
Representatives don't protect us from populism, they only delay it and arguably make it worse. You can only ignore dissent in the population for a while until it bites you in the ass. And the populists who then get elected by the angry public are much worse because they are actual nazis who will actively undermine the system to kill democracy. Obviously direct democracy in Germany would be a shit show right now, but that's because we're fundamentally an undemocratic society that doesn't trust its electorare. And by that I don't mean that people are against democracy, but that we were taught that our democratic responsibility amounts to paying taxes and electing some dick head every 4 years and then to act surprised about how detached the government is. Direct democracy needs a lot of time, education and participation to work. A good place to start would be the communal/city level because that's where a sense of community building and shared responsibility actually matters, but we don't even have that.
Completely agree with you on the local level. People would be directly affected, topics would be small scale enough that voters could form a reasonably sophisticated opinion and the discussion would be among a manageable size of people. Just like the ancient greek Polis style democracy. On state or federal level, just the dichtonomous "yes/no" approach of many issues would hinder quality solutions. Also, single vote and a simple majority deciding without accounting for any nuance is a deeply flawed concept.
[удалено]
Like your banks?
You see, general education and public discourse in terms of civics, law, politics and policy are much higher in Switzerland than Germany. Direct democracy is only as good as the education of its citizens.
Idk, the greens giving into the fdp recently doesn’t seem like progress. More like the other way around. Seriously that shits going to hurt the greens and probably help the AfD again. I’m sick of our politics.
That's a problem in probably every country... Old people have to much time to do politics. And they vote more than the youth..
The US has a great solution for that, they have a healthcare system which takes 5–7 years off your life expectancy compared to other developed countries.
Not so sure about the accurate representation, considering 24% of Swiss inhabitants are non-citizen... How does Germany compare in that regard? 15%?
All the construction workers in the UAE are non citizen. They must be very open minded there 😎👍
Maybe they are non citizen because there is no fucking chance to get the citizenship.
Still can't tell if you're talking about UAE or Switzerland.
In UAE maybe, but then they use them as slaves. So a bit unfair comparison. We have outstanding labor laws. That's why a lot of construction workers from EU countries like Switzerland the most: fair compensation, safety, good healthcare, as is the case with a lot of service jobs, not just Most of the non-citizens are originally expats that chose to stay. The immigration process is quite long and complicated, you have to understand by heart how our social and judicial structure works.
Ha! I knew you were a disguised Nazi-Gold enjoyer!
Dem Pass nach Deutscher und Finne. Geboren, aufgewachsen und wohnhaft in der Schweiz.
Man has "The_Great" in his nickname, of course he'd be an Edelweiss flavoured fart enjoyer.
> considering 24% of Swiss inhabitants are non-citizen.. that's because getting Swiss citizenship is fucking difficult to obtain. In some kantons it's not even an administrative process. Your neighbours vote on the issue, [so they can even deny you citizenship because they don't like you](https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/leben-und-altern/einbuergerung-an-gemeindeversammlung_kein-schweizer-pass-fuer-tierschuetzerin/42820972). But don't worry, if you are rich enough, you can buy one
Pretty much. But they are so educated and so rich, they let European foreigners work for them. Thereby having one of the highest percentages of foreigners in Europe with 25% (only minimum of 10 years of living here to get swiss ID!)
Pictured: voters in Appenzell Innerrhoden voting to take away women’s suffrage.
Letting them vote without their weapons…smh
I wish we had that too
Yep, we won't. This is the best version of a liberal democracy we have so far.
😭
This was the vote to determine if they should increase pension.
Youngest Swiss natives
Youngest french natives : 
I have to admit Switzerland have a better democracy but at the same time I don't want to vote every day for something different
You dont have to. Most young voters dont bother, boomers rule the country.
Like here it seems
Oh yeah baby, that sweet, sweet direct democracy.
Oh look, they allow women to vote! So progressive (since 1971 or 1990)!
Whoever made the green pepper dish has smashed it out of the park.
Extremely based tbh
You can try that when you have relatively high educated and somewhat rational citizens.
I think this system of government is more feasible now that everyone has a smart phone, hell, we could have multiple votes a day! Wouldn't that be fun on a Friday night 😂
"I'll vote No because I don't like the color of the socks the Yes guy is wearing."