4 ms·

Switzerland, actually, is bloody good at this referendum thing. They do it all the time, and because of that the level of debate is relatively high and the pop

by Ntrails 11y ago

Switzerland, actually, is bloody good at this referendum thing. They do it all the time, and because of that the level of debate is relatively high and the populace make far better choices than you would see in a country without the same situation.

_delirium 11y ago
Can you point to a Swiss referendum campaign with a high level of debate? I've only closely followed one referendum campaign in Switzerland, I'll admit, but the level of debate in that one was quite low, even by the standards of a typical European election campaign. That was the 2014 referendum on whether to put quotas on Schengen-zone immigration [1]. It was basically the usual shouting match over immigration you'd expect anywhere, full of a lot of vitriol and not much in the way of rational debate or accurate statistics. The outcome was also what you'd expect anywhere else too, predictable more by demographics than argumentation: rural areas and less-educated people voted to restrict immigration, cities and the highly educated voted not to, so the final outcome depended mainly on voter turnout among each of those groups. Since getting your base as riled up as possible is a better way of getting turnout than rational debate, that's what both sides did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...
vanilla-almond 11y ago
>the level of debate is relatively high and the populace make far better choices than you would see in a country without the same situation. What about the Swiss referendum on an absolute ban on the construction of minarets? (note: not a ban on building mosques) Switzerland, like many other European countries, has planning laws that decide on the architectural appropriateness of a building in its surrounding environment on a case-by-case basis. But this referendum, passed by a majority of the Swiss population, placed a complete ban on a minaret ever being built again in Switzerland. That was a completely democratic decision by the people of Switzerland. But was it based on informed debate? Or reactionary and emotional appeals? [1] [1]http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/11/ch-1.jpg http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/11/ch-1.jpg
- vixen99 11y ago
  Wonderful buttons for pressing eh? "Reactionary" & "Emotional" - words which in the absence of qualification are essentially meaningless or as in this case, take on the perjorative meaning you like to confer on them, to justify an unargued position. However great the temptation, I take note that HN is not the venue for a continuation of this debate.
  - elbear 11y ago
    What would be a non-emotional reason for banning the construction of minarets?

by Ntrails 11y ago

_delirium 11y ago

Can you point to a Swiss referendum campaign with a high level of debate? I've only closely followed one referendum campaign in Switzerland, I'll admit, but the level of debate in that one was quite low, even by the standards of a typical European election campaign. That was the 2014 referendum on whether to put quotas on Schengen-zone immigration [1]. It was basically the usual shouting match over immigration you'd expect anywhere, full of a lot of vitriol and not much in the way of rational debate or accurate statistics. The outcome was also what you'd expect anywhere else too, predictable more by demographics than argumentation: rural areas and less-educated people voted to restrict immigration, cities and the highly educated voted not to, so the final outcome depended mainly on voter turnout among each of those groups. Since getting your base as riled up as possible is a better way of getting turnout than rational debate, that's what both sides did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...

vanilla-almond 11y ago

>the level of debate is relatively high and the populace make far better choices than you would see in a country without the same situation. What about the Swiss referendum on an absolute ban on the construction of minarets? (note: not a ban on building mosques) Switzerland, like many other European countries, has planning laws that decide on the architectural appropriateness of a building in its surrounding environment on a case-by-case basis. But this referendum, passed by a majority of the Swiss population, placed a complete ban on a minaret ever being built again in Switzerland. That was a completely democratic decision by the people of Switzerland. But was it based on informed debate? Or reactionary and emotional appeals? [1] [1]http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/11/ch-1.jpg http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/11/ch-1.jpg

vixen99 11y ago
Wonderful buttons for pressing eh? "Reactionary" & "Emotional" - words which in the absence of qualification are essentially meaningless or as in this case, take on the perjorative meaning you like to confer on them, to justify an unargued position. However great the temptation, I take note that HN is not the venue for a continuation of this debate.
- elbear 11y ago
  What would be a non-emotional reason for banning the construction of minarets?