8 ms·

I wish I would live in a country where essential political decisions like that are made by the people and not by some professional political elite in a far away

I wish I would live in a country where essential political decisions like that are made by the people and not by some professional political elite in a far away capital.

tdkl 10y ago
Sorry to burst your bubble but direct democracy doesn't work everywhere by default.
- _nalply 10y ago
  And why do you think so?
  - tdkl 10y ago
    The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion (I wanted to state educated, but education doesn't necessarily mean that the choice would be on the rational side) and media influence.
    - _nalply 10y ago
      And do you think Switzerland is different?
      - tdkl 10y ago
        No I don't need to, they've shown they're different. Can I turn the question around : do you think this would work in USA, India and Brazil (random countries, nothing specific)?
        herbst 10y ago
        I honestly think e-democracy would work everywhere after a few years of total chaos.
      - _nalply 10y ago
        This is controversial, but I think any nation can have direct democracy adapted to the nation's culture. It's just that the Swiss have more than a hundred years experience with direct democracy and have learnt for the most part to be diligent in their decisions.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion In a real democracy, they're not supposed to either. If their culture, religion, etc is important to them, it should definitely affect their decisions, and that's the democratic way. Same for their feelings. Democracy is not about voting what's "right" (who is to say? you?) but about getting what the majority wants. And there's nothing unhonest about letting culture, religion and feelings affecting your vote. What you describe as your ideal democracy where people only make "rational choices" is rather the old republican idea of sages who know better than the people (like the "founding fathers" in the US) and encode some norms forever. "Rational" used in this sense, is totally normative -- "what I think is rational" or "what those experts say it rational and good for you", and in the end undemocratic.
  - elcapitan 10y ago
    I think it's true-ish in the same way that representative democracy doesn't work everywhere either. Many post-communist countries like Russia are an easy example. Obviously the working of a system depends on the social contract being considered legitimate by the population. Concretely this means that for direct democracy to 'work' you'll need a population that has experience and a self-confidence to be the ones that turn up and vote about a bunch of issues they'll need to understand. That's something that can't be implemented overnight. But similarly even representative democracy can't be implemented overnight. That's the dynamic nature of the social contract. Something I admire about the Swiss btw.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  There's no bubble. I agree with you. That's why I am in favor of small countries or at least largely federal structures. And obviously against large undemocratic bureaucratic constructs like the European Union.
_nalply 10y ago
The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitution. (https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html#a72 https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/...) I think such regulations should be decreed as a law and not as a constitution norm if at all. But if everybody has a say you get bikeshedding in the constitution.
- shrugger 10y ago
  [deleted, vote brigading]
  - _nalply 10y ago
    Yes, you didn't understand. Detailed construction regulations don't have a place in the constitution.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  I agree, but that's not really an argument against direct democracy, but rather in favor of a slightly differently constructed constitution - basically there should be a unchangeable core of norms, and no additions that defy the purpose of those norms should be possible. Religious freedom in that case.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Technically, it's not against religious freedom - after all, you can still practice, at home!
- Havoc 10y ago
  >The construction of minarets is prohibited. Hardly surprising. Nobody wants to be awoken at ungodly hours by that howling.
  - Inthenameofmine 10y ago
    While I agree about the howling, that was already not allowed. The referendum was only about the physical minarets. Unfortunately the church clocks make just as much noise in Switzerland.
xyzzy4 10y ago
Perhaps you should move to Iran. The people there wanted sharia law and they got it.
rubyfan 10y ago
It's your lucky day, wikiHow has step by step instructions: How to Move to Switzerland http://m.wikihow.com/Move-to-Switzerland http://m.wikihow.com/Move-to-Switzerland
- technofiend 10y ago
  Switzerland is notoriously tough to emigrate to unless you have a great deal of seed capital to start your own business.
  - eps 10y ago
    ... or if you have an EU citizenship, in which case you can just get there, get visa, settle and start searching for a job. In that order.
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      Incorrect order, sir. You can move there, live there on 3-month tourist visa, look for work in the meantime, and once somebody will hire you, you will receive proper work permit (visa). You can re-enter, but it's a damn expensive place to live and not earn. Unless you are from 10 new EU countries, then getting work permit isn't automatic but you deal with limited queues per year, per canton. Once depleted (which goes fast), bye. And employer has to prove to officials that there is no one Swiss or with existing permit to do this job, which adds a lot of bureaucracy. It gets deeper, far from easy simple situation. But it's true that EU citizens have certain advantages.
rbanffy 10y ago
The downside is that the people who vote are not necessarily informed about what they are voting.
ck2 10y ago
Yes but I also want to know how many millions were spent on advertisements trying to persuade "the people" one way or another by the political elite. Because the first referendum that should be called for in a country that has 1:1 voting on issues is to end all political advertisements.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Call it defeatist if you like, but the last thing you should want is that kind of spending getting forced underground. You said it yourself, "one way or another". The money is there, it "wants" to get spent, the more openly that happens, the less harm will be done. If you don't give it a channel it will find one.
massysett 10y ago
Maybe direct democracy works in a small scale, and by "small" I mean a few dozen people in a town. Referendum is no panacea. A legislative body can tweak legislation and debate it and compromise. When voting on a referendum there is no such compromise. It's just a binary choice.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Communism is the same way. What works on the communal farm doesn't scale out to a nation-state.
kazinator 10y ago
What if you were a discriminated minority, and important decisions specifically affected you were put to a referendum? Oops, 60% of the populace thinks you're a nuisance who should just shut up and put up (and ideally just go away).
- pka 10y ago
  Sure, sucks. But anyway, would you like to live in a place where the majority of people don't like you? It's going to be a fact with our without referendums or laws.
- cronjobber 10y ago
  If you get a different result under representative democracy, the minority must be assumed to have more actual (real world) power than mere headcount indicates. In that case, direct democracy is indeed broken, but the reason is not "discrimination" against those who are actually pretty powerful, but eventual instability from the system's inability to act as a predictive proxy for more direct (less civilized) resolution.

I wish I would live in a country where essential political decisions like that are made by the people and not by some professional political elite in a far away capital.

tdkl 10y ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but direct democracy doesn't work everywhere by default.

_nalply 10y ago
And why do you think so?
- tdkl 10y ago
  The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion (I wanted to state educated, but education doesn't necessarily mean that the choice would be on the rational side) and media influence.
  - _nalply 10y ago
    And do you think Switzerland is different?
    - tdkl 10y ago
      No I don't need to, they've shown they're different. Can I turn the question around : do you think this would work in USA, India and Brazil (random countries, nothing specific)?
      - herbst 10y ago
        I honestly think e-democracy would work everywhere after a few years of total chaos.
    - _nalply 10y ago
      This is controversial, but I think any nation can have direct democracy adapted to the nation's culture. It's just that the Swiss have more than a hundred years experience with direct democracy and have learnt for the most part to be diligent in their decisions.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion In a real democracy, they're not supposed to either. If their culture, religion, etc is important to them, it should definitely affect their decisions, and that's the democratic way. Same for their feelings. Democracy is not about voting what's "right" (who is to say? you?) but about getting what the majority wants. And there's nothing unhonest about letting culture, religion and feelings affecting your vote. What you describe as your ideal democracy where people only make "rational choices" is rather the old republican idea of sages who know better than the people (like the "founding fathers" in the US) and encode some norms forever. "Rational" used in this sense, is totally normative -- "what I think is rational" or "what those experts say it rational and good for you", and in the end undemocratic.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  I think it's true-ish in the same way that representative democracy doesn't work everywhere either. Many post-communist countries like Russia are an easy example. Obviously the working of a system depends on the social contract being considered legitimate by the population. Concretely this means that for direct democracy to 'work' you'll need a population that has experience and a self-confidence to be the ones that turn up and vote about a bunch of issues they'll need to understand. That's something that can't be implemented overnight. But similarly even representative democracy can't be implemented overnight. That's the dynamic nature of the social contract. Something I admire about the Swiss btw.
elcapitan 10y ago
There's no bubble. I agree with you. That's why I am in favor of small countries or at least largely federal structures. And obviously against large undemocratic bureaucratic constructs like the European Union.

_nalply 10y ago

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitution. (https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html#a72 https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/...) I think such regulations should be decreed as a law and not as a constitution norm if at all. But if everybody has a say you get bikeshedding in the constitution.

shrugger 10y ago
[deleted, vote brigading]
- _nalply 10y ago
  Yes, you didn't understand. Detailed construction regulations don't have a place in the constitution.
elcapitan 10y ago
I agree, but that's not really an argument against direct democracy, but rather in favor of a slightly differently constructed constitution - basically there should be a unchangeable core of norms, and no additions that defy the purpose of those norms should be possible. Religious freedom in that case.
- tomp 10y ago
  Technically, it's not against religious freedom - after all, you can still practice, at home!
Havoc 10y ago
>The construction of minarets is prohibited. Hardly surprising. Nobody wants to be awoken at ungodly hours by that howling.
- Inthenameofmine 10y ago
  While I agree about the howling, that was already not allowed. The referendum was only about the physical minarets. Unfortunately the church clocks make just as much noise in Switzerland.

xyzzy4 10y ago

Perhaps you should move to Iran. The people there wanted sharia law and they got it.

rubyfan 10y ago

It's your lucky day, wikiHow has step by step instructions: How to Move to Switzerland http://m.wikihow.com/Move-to-Switzerland http://m.wikihow.com/Move-to-Switzerland

technofiend 10y ago
Switzerland is notoriously tough to emigrate to unless you have a great deal of seed capital to start your own business.
- eps 10y ago
  ... or if you have an EU citizenship, in which case you can just get there, get visa, settle and start searching for a job. In that order.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    Incorrect order, sir. You can move there, live there on 3-month tourist visa, look for work in the meantime, and once somebody will hire you, you will receive proper work permit (visa). You can re-enter, but it's a damn expensive place to live and not earn. Unless you are from 10 new EU countries, then getting work permit isn't automatic but you deal with limited queues per year, per canton. Once depleted (which goes fast), bye. And employer has to prove to officials that there is no one Swiss or with existing permit to do this job, which adds a lot of bureaucracy. It gets deeper, far from easy simple situation. But it's true that EU citizens have certain advantages.

rbanffy 10y ago

The downside is that the people who vote are not necessarily informed about what they are voting.

ck2 10y ago

Yes but I also want to know how many millions were spent on advertisements trying to persuade "the people" one way or another by the political elite. Because the first referendum that should be called for in a country that has 1:1 voting on issues is to end all political advertisements.

usrusr 10y ago
Call it defeatist if you like, but the last thing you should want is that kind of spending getting forced underground. You said it yourself, "one way or another". The money is there, it "wants" to get spent, the more openly that happens, the less harm will be done. If you don't give it a channel it will find one.

massysett 10y ago

Maybe direct democracy works in a small scale, and by "small" I mean a few dozen people in a town. Referendum is no panacea. A legislative body can tweak legislation and debate it and compromise. When voting on a referendum there is no such compromise. It's just a binary choice.

coredog64 10y ago
Communism is the same way. What works on the communal farm doesn't scale out to a nation-state.

kazinator 10y ago

What if you were a discriminated minority, and important decisions specifically affected you were put to a referendum? Oops, 60% of the populace thinks you're a nuisance who should just shut up and put up (and ideally just go away).

pka 10y ago
Sure, sucks. But anyway, would you like to live in a place where the majority of people don't like you? It's going to be a fact with our without referendums or laws.
cronjobber 10y ago
If you get a different result under representative democracy, the minority must be assumed to have more actual (real world) power than mere headcount indicates. In that case, direct democracy is indeed broken, but the reason is not "discrimination" against those who are actually pretty powerful, but eventual instability from the system's inability to act as a predictive proxy for more direct (less civilized) resolution.