12 ms·

> I feel like they are quite drastic initiatives To me the greatest thing about Switzerland's direct democracy is that society gets the opportunity to make mis

> I feel like they are quite drastic initiatives To me the greatest thing about Switzerland's direct democracy is that society gets the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them with a very quick turnaround. If it really is a bad thing or has unintended consequences, the people will revert it back soon enough. I doubt that is the case, but time will tell. The problem with modern 2-party systems in the West is they are highly confrontational and loathe to undo the policies they wore on their shirt for so long, often waiting until most of the senior people behind such decisions are gone. It creates this horrible inertia against adeptly experimenting with solutions. If politicians can offload some of the blame onto people for laws created, that's a good thing for society in my view.

andy_ppp 5y ago
This is awesome, under what conditions would Brexit be a) possible and b) reversed in the Swiss model?
- rlt 5y ago
  Switzerland would have to be part of the EU, for one.
  - varajelle 5y ago
    Assuming the UK was using the Swiss model.
    - soco 5y ago
      The Swiss negotiated for 7 years a general agreement with the EU (and failed at it in the end) so I would say no, the UK wasn't using the Swiss model.
- pjc50 5y ago
  You can actually see the same dynamic playing out with Swiss access to the EEA: https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/27/what-s-the-future-of-eu-swiss-relations-now-talks-have-collapsed https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/27/what-s-the-future-of-eu-... The debate doesn't seem to be being carried out in quite such a stupid way as it was in the UK, but everyone is clear that it's the public objection to immigrants that is the flashpoint.
  - exoque 5y ago
    How did you get that from the article? The agreements in place already allow immigration from eu countries, not a lot would have changed in this regard. The main problem is the further erosion of swiss direct democratic rights and sovereignty.
- tomp 5y ago
  No, Brexit isn’t possible in Switzerland. People voted for what is essentially Brexit, but the politicians refused to implement it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initi...
  - soco 5y ago
    Actually it is implemented as we speak, after years of tough negotiations, because that's the beauty of Swiss initiatives, they give the tone but not the legal terms - ensuring there's negotiation room, both internal and external. So depending on your personal definition it is succeeding or failing, but the fact is it is happening, there's no doubt about it. It's also not a "Brexit" because Switzerland never was part of the EU so using that name makes the discussion highly confusing for an outsider.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  EDIT: I can’t add to my answer above but the point is to ask about how in the Swiss direct democracy model something as complicated as Brexit would have been handled (same? different?). I’m well aware Switzerland is not part of the EU. Apologies this wasn’t clear!
sofixa 5y ago
> The problem with modern 2-party systems in the West You mean the US, maybe Canada? The closest equivalents outside of North America, the UK and Australia, with the same broken voting system that favours a limited party landscape, have more than 2 parties in the mainstream and coalitions are often needed ( like Tories with DUP recently).
- spindle 5y ago
  I upvoted this because I agree that the UK and Australia have more than two important parties, but I believe that the Australian voting system is MUCH better than the US and UK systems (which also supports your main point in a way).
  - solraph 5y ago
    It's better, but it's still rubbish. The FPTP system virtually guarantees a two party system, which means that whatever one party thinks is a good idea, the other is effectively forced into taking the opposing view, and the lake of anti-competition laws (or enforcement of?) around media effectively means that Murdoch media and the Liberal/National coalition are basically wings of the same party. Having seen MMP play out on the other side of the Tasman, it's pretty clear that MMP produces saner outcomes. My personal opinion is that is MMP forces coalitions more often. The upshot of which is that everyone is forced to be more willing to communicate and compromise and take on saner positions, because the opposition one term may turn out to be the maker of the governing party the next.
- bcrl 5y ago
  Canada is decidedly not a 2 party system. There are 5 parties in parliment in total, although the Greens only have 3 seats. Yes, 2 parties tend to hold power, but we also end up with the ruling party only having a minority (as is currently the case) from time to time which makes for a very different dynamic. The biggest difference between Canada and the US is that Canadian voters can and will act to kick a government out of office when they aren't acting in the interests of the people, sometimes shifting the makeup of the government significantly after a general election. Ridings also aren't gerrymandered insanely, so there are many seats which can shift parties.
dosshell 5y ago
> The problem with modern 2-party systems in the West Could you elaborate on this? Very few countries i know in the west have a 2-party system.
- soco 5y ago
  It's a common mistake to judge the entire west from an US perspective. But the UK is not very far from the 2 parties system either.
  - malka 5y ago
    France is closer and closer from a 2 parties system
    - LunaSea 5y ago
      France is currently a 1 party system.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        France is always a 1 party system in regards to who is in direct central power, since parliamentary elections are just after presidential ones, to send the winning president a parliament they can work with. In almost all cases the ( slim) majority the ruling party has falls apart over the course of their term. And that's why there's an indirectly elected upper chamber ( Senate), to avoid a populist wave changing too much.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Bullshit, look at any election from the past 5 years and there are at least 5 mainstream parties - PS, LR, RN, LREM, EELV. PS are in a bit of a crisis but still do decently in local and European elections.
  - dukeyukey 5y ago
    Arguably the UK is a "2-party-but" system. The main parties are limited in their policies towards Scotland because of how much influence the SNP has, and we've seen what UKIP managed to do while barely ever winning seats. There's enough of a threat from smaller parties to keep the big ones somewhat cooperative, or at least take a wider range of views into account.
mushbino 5y ago
The success of that type of system relies pretty heavily on having an informed populace. It's worth noting that in the US almost all of our media is owned by just a handful of corporations. We can vote on things all day long but it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be in our own interest.
Apanatshka 5y ago
An important and sometimes forgotten thing about democracy is that it isn't as simple as the majority rules. It's the majority rules while taking minorities into account. In a well functioning representational democracy this is kept in mind my career politicians. In a hybrid between representational and direct like in Switzerland, the population can overrule and just go with majority rule. For example, the Swiss pension system is similar to others in Europe, where the current working population pay taxes almost directly towards pensions of the retired. Since this system will break down if taxes aren't increased like crazy or pensions lowered, politicians have been trying to change the system. But there are too many people soon to be retired or already retired that care less about their country's youth and future than their own pension, so they keep blocking changes. So every democratic system has its tradeoffs... I learned this from a young Swiss when I was visiting Switzerland and praising their way of democracy. It was a few years ago though, so maybe this info is no longer accurate. And I didn't fact check, it was just an example brought up in casual conversation.
- tomp 5y ago
  No, the Swiss & EU are right in this case. Any form of retirement works the same - young people working to serve the old. How you finance it is a different question - but clearly increasing taxes & lowering pensions is just one way of the system breaking down. Another way is, everybody saving while working, not having kids, then spending when retired (results in market crashes & massive inflation). The original problem is not having kids. The “direct transfer” system simply keeps incentives more aligned.
  - phicoh 5y ago
    Many countries have realised that relying on a continuously growing population has its own problems. So you need a pension system for a population that doesn't grow. Basically that means that everybody has to pay for their own pension. It doesn't really matter whether you do it as taxes that get paid to the people currently retired or by saving money. The solution The Netherlands came up with (next to moving to an individual pension system) to try to raise the retirement age to 67. This is quite unpopular. But it's either that or a low pension.

andy_ppp 5y ago

This is awesome, under what conditions would Brexit be a) possible and b) reversed in the Swiss model?

rlt 5y ago
Switzerland would have to be part of the EU, for one.
- varajelle 5y ago
  Assuming the UK was using the Swiss model.
  - soco 5y ago
    The Swiss negotiated for 7 years a general agreement with the EU (and failed at it in the end) so I would say no, the UK wasn't using the Swiss model.
pjc50 5y ago
You can actually see the same dynamic playing out with Swiss access to the EEA: https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/27/what-s-the-future-of-eu-swiss-relations-now-talks-have-collapsed https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/27/what-s-the-future-of-eu-... The debate doesn't seem to be being carried out in quite such a stupid way as it was in the UK, but everyone is clear that it's the public objection to immigrants that is the flashpoint.
- exoque 5y ago
  How did you get that from the article? The agreements in place already allow immigration from eu countries, not a lot would have changed in this regard. The main problem is the further erosion of swiss direct democratic rights and sovereignty.
tomp 5y ago
No, Brexit isn’t possible in Switzerland. People voted for what is essentially Brexit, but the politicians refused to implement it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initi...
- soco 5y ago
  Actually it is implemented as we speak, after years of tough negotiations, because that's the beauty of Swiss initiatives, they give the tone but not the legal terms - ensuring there's negotiation room, both internal and external. So depending on your personal definition it is succeeding or failing, but the fact is it is happening, there's no doubt about it. It's also not a "Brexit" because Switzerland never was part of the EU so using that name makes the discussion highly confusing for an outsider.
andy_ppp 5y ago
EDIT: I can’t add to my answer above but the point is to ask about how in the Swiss direct democracy model something as complicated as Brexit would have been handled (same? different?). I’m well aware Switzerland is not part of the EU. Apologies this wasn’t clear!

sofixa 5y ago

> The problem with modern 2-party systems in the West You mean the US, maybe Canada? The closest equivalents outside of North America, the UK and Australia, with the same broken voting system that favours a limited party landscape, have more than 2 parties in the mainstream and coalitions are often needed ( like Tories with DUP recently).

spindle 5y ago
I upvoted this because I agree that the UK and Australia have more than two important parties, but I believe that the Australian voting system is MUCH better than the US and UK systems (which also supports your main point in a way).
- solraph 5y ago
  It's better, but it's still rubbish. The FPTP system virtually guarantees a two party system, which means that whatever one party thinks is a good idea, the other is effectively forced into taking the opposing view, and the lake of anti-competition laws (or enforcement of?) around media effectively means that Murdoch media and the Liberal/National coalition are basically wings of the same party. Having seen MMP play out on the other side of the Tasman, it's pretty clear that MMP produces saner outcomes. My personal opinion is that is MMP forces coalitions more often. The upshot of which is that everyone is forced to be more willing to communicate and compromise and take on saner positions, because the opposition one term may turn out to be the maker of the governing party the next.
bcrl 5y ago
Canada is decidedly not a 2 party system. There are 5 parties in parliment in total, although the Greens only have 3 seats. Yes, 2 parties tend to hold power, but we also end up with the ruling party only having a minority (as is currently the case) from time to time which makes for a very different dynamic. The biggest difference between Canada and the US is that Canadian voters can and will act to kick a government out of office when they aren't acting in the interests of the people, sometimes shifting the makeup of the government significantly after a general election. Ridings also aren't gerrymandered insanely, so there are many seats which can shift parties.

dosshell 5y ago

> The problem with modern 2-party systems in the West Could you elaborate on this? Very few countries i know in the west have a 2-party system.

soco 5y ago
It's a common mistake to judge the entire west from an US perspective. But the UK is not very far from the 2 parties system either.
- malka 5y ago
  France is closer and closer from a 2 parties system
  - LunaSea 5y ago
    France is currently a 1 party system.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      France is always a 1 party system in regards to who is in direct central power, since parliamentary elections are just after presidential ones, to send the winning president a parliament they can work with. In almost all cases the ( slim) majority the ruling party has falls apart over the course of their term. And that's why there's an indirectly elected upper chamber ( Senate), to avoid a populist wave changing too much.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Bullshit, look at any election from the past 5 years and there are at least 5 mainstream parties - PS, LR, RN, LREM, EELV. PS are in a bit of a crisis but still do decently in local and European elections.
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  Arguably the UK is a "2-party-but" system. The main parties are limited in their policies towards Scotland because of how much influence the SNP has, and we've seen what UKIP managed to do while barely ever winning seats. There's enough of a threat from smaller parties to keep the big ones somewhat cooperative, or at least take a wider range of views into account.

mushbino 5y ago

The success of that type of system relies pretty heavily on having an informed populace. It's worth noting that in the US almost all of our media is owned by just a handful of corporations. We can vote on things all day long but it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be in our own interest.

Apanatshka 5y ago

An important and sometimes forgotten thing about democracy is that it isn't as simple as the majority rules. It's the majority rules while taking minorities into account. In a well functioning representational democracy this is kept in mind my career politicians. In a hybrid between representational and direct like in Switzerland, the population can overrule and just go with majority rule. For example, the Swiss pension system is similar to others in Europe, where the current working population pay taxes almost directly towards pensions of the retired. Since this system will break down if taxes aren't increased like crazy or pensions lowered, politicians have been trying to change the system. But there are too many people soon to be retired or already retired that care less about their country's youth and future than their own pension, so they keep blocking changes. So every democratic system has its tradeoffs... I learned this from a young Swiss when I was visiting Switzerland and praising their way of democracy. It was a few years ago though, so maybe this info is no longer accurate. And I didn't fact check, it was just an example brought up in casual conversation.

tomp 5y ago
No, the Swiss & EU are right in this case. Any form of retirement works the same - young people working to serve the old. How you finance it is a different question - but clearly increasing taxes & lowering pensions is just one way of the system breaking down. Another way is, everybody saving while working, not having kids, then spending when retired (results in market crashes & massive inflation). The original problem is not having kids. The “direct transfer” system simply keeps incentives more aligned.
- phicoh 5y ago
  Many countries have realised that relying on a continuously growing population has its own problems. So you need a pension system for a population that doesn't grow. Basically that means that everybody has to pay for their own pension. It doesn't really matter whether you do it as taxes that get paid to the people currently retired or by saving money. The solution The Netherlands came up with (next to moving to an individual pension system) to try to raise the retirement age to 67. This is quite unpopular. But it's either that or a low pension.