Switzerland is very much an exception to the rule, and even it has a written constitution limiting the government's power. "More power to the people" works when

Switzerland is very much an exception to the rule, and even it has a written constitution limiting the government's power. "More power to the people" works when operating within a culture that values attributes that lead to a stable, wealthy society over time, and with limits to what the people can make government do. Otherwise it becomes, as they say, two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The Swiss do have a popular vote on things, but they aren't, for example, voting themselves free lunch and ponies for all. I don't know whether that's because the government is prohibited from providing free lunch and ponies or because the majority of people culturally value hard work and saving over immediate gratification and are educated enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Either way, it would not work out as well in places where one or both of those things are not true. Let's pick out some recent results from Switzerland: In 2022, voters rejected "Ban on animal and human experiments" and "Popular initiative against factory farming", and approved "Limiting tobacco advertising". In 2021, they rejected "Federal Act on greenhouse gas emissions" and "For clean drinking water and healthy food", and approved "Ban on full facial coverings". In 2020, they rejected "Affordable housing" and "Ban on financing weapon production" and approved "Paternity leave". In 2019, they rejected "Stop the Sprawl", and approved "Gun control directive". From this, I can gather that the Swiss as a whole are sensible people who understand that voting for things that sound good on the surface like "ban factory farming" or "more affordable housing" might lead to worse problems down the road than what it is they are trying to fix; and that they have a strong sense of cultural identity, as shown by the ban on full facial coverings. I would imagine the same questions would yield vastly different results in other places. The proposition system in California resulted in Prop 13, arguably one of the worst policy disasters ever in that state, looking back almost 45 years later. Now the San Francisco city government is talking about paying every black resident a lump sum of $5mm and a guaranteed high income for the next 250 years; what do you think a binding popular referendum would do in that city?