3 ms·

Switzerland, we can actually vote for things instead of voting for people who we hope will vote for what we want.

ghaff 3y ago
And the proliferation of ballot questions in US states has been a rather mixed bag. And in many locales in the US, there are direct votes on many local matters.
giraffe_lady 3y ago
[flagged]
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Sounds like an argument for direct democracy to me. The will of the people was implemented, even though it's politically incorrect.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I don't always know what "politically incorrect" is being used as a euphemism for but banning mosques seems straightforwardly bad to me idk I guess I'm just a woke dumbass hey.
    - snapcaster 3y ago
      Not that you're a woke dumbass, just probably not a true believer in democracy. The thing described above I also dislike, but I recognize I'm not a resident or voter there and I shouldn't get a say in their lives
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - palata 3y ago
      As said above, it was not banning mosques, but minarets specifically. There were only 4 minarets in Switzerland at the time, and no plan to build any more. You could try to build a minaret in Switzerland, get the permit refused, appeal, and try to go up to a court high enough to make that law illegal. But it seems like nobody cared. It was more political theater at the time. Not that it was a good vote, but I wouldn't say that the Swiss democracy doesn't work based on that. Switzerland is an example of consensus, and a functional democracy.
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      No euphemism. It is politically incorrect.
- another2another 3y ago
  I think it was specifically just minarets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum Now, you might find even that a bit overbearing, but I believe the right of a community to influence the architecture of their local town shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. The feeling was that the few minarets that already existed were incongruent enough, that they didn't want a carte-blanche on more sprouting up, which I think planning permission had already been applied for.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - rainworld 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        What?
        rainworld 3y ago
        No such thing as “value-neutral”. Not in architecture nor anywhere else.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  Minarets. Another referendum - in fact the first one ever to be accepted since the reconstitution of Switzerland as a federal state post-Napoleon - banned kosher/halal slaughtering of animals (at the time it was directed against Jews, not Muslims). The ban stands to this day.
palata 3y ago
Not that I disagree, but what I believe makes Switzerland a functioning democracy is that people feel represented. Go complain about the result of a vote in Switzerland and people will say "did you vote?" instead of following you to invade the Capitol. If you did vote, then people will say "well, you're in the minority then". The mere fact that most people feel that way shows, to me, that the system works. Compare that to e.g. France where Macron got less than 20% in the first round. It means that 80% of the votes were not for him, and of the 20% remaining, a lot did not want him but just thought he was the best chance against the far-right candidate. Right when Macron was re-elected, you could say that more than 80% of the people who voted did not want him. That's a problem IMO. Not even talking about the US presidents...
- SomberSummers 3y ago
  > "well, you're in the minority then" 49% minority = get fucked <1% minority = here's your new lords and saviours
  - palata 3y ago
    Not sure what you mean. The people in Switzerland votes for a ton of stuff (not just for a president every 4 years). If you manage to always be on the minority, then probably you are doing it on purpose. The norm is that people are sometimes in the minority, sometimes in the majority. That's called consensus, that's what makes for a good democracy IMO. The opposite (again IMO) is a system where the people votes for a president every 4 years, and invades the Capitol when they lose. BTW Switzerland does not have a president, but instead a group of 7 representing the biggest parties in the country. So there is consensus even at the highest level.

And the proliferation of ballot questions in US states has been a rather mixed bag. And in many locales in the US, there are direct votes on many local matters.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

[flagged]

rpmisms 3y ago
Sounds like an argument for direct democracy to me. The will of the people was implemented, even though it's politically incorrect.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I don't always know what "politically incorrect" is being used as a euphemism for but banning mosques seems straightforwardly bad to me idk I guess I'm just a woke dumbass hey.
  - snapcaster 3y ago
    Not that you're a woke dumbass, just probably not a true believer in democracy. The thing described above I also dislike, but I recognize I'm not a resident or voter there and I shouldn't get a say in their lives
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - palata 3y ago
    As said above, it was not banning mosques, but minarets specifically. There were only 4 minarets in Switzerland at the time, and no plan to build any more. You could try to build a minaret in Switzerland, get the permit refused, appeal, and try to go up to a court high enough to make that law illegal. But it seems like nobody cared. It was more political theater at the time. Not that it was a good vote, but I wouldn't say that the Swiss democracy doesn't work based on that. Switzerland is an example of consensus, and a functional democracy.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    No euphemism. It is politically incorrect.
another2another 3y ago
I think it was specifically just minarets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum Now, you might find even that a bit overbearing, but I believe the right of a community to influence the architecture of their local town shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. The feeling was that the few minarets that already existed were incongruent enough, that they didn't want a carte-blanche on more sprouting up, which I think planning permission had already been applied for.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - rainworld 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      What?
      - rainworld 3y ago
        No such thing as “value-neutral”. Not in architecture nor anywhere else.
red_admiral 3y ago
Minarets. Another referendum - in fact the first one ever to be accepted since the reconstitution of Switzerland as a federal state post-Napoleon - banned kosher/halal slaughtering of animals (at the time it was directed against Jews, not Muslims). The ban stands to this day.

palata 3y ago

Not that I disagree, but what I believe makes Switzerland a functioning democracy is that people feel represented. Go complain about the result of a vote in Switzerland and people will say "did you vote?" instead of following you to invade the Capitol. If you did vote, then people will say "well, you're in the minority then". The mere fact that most people feel that way shows, to me, that the system works. Compare that to e.g. France where Macron got less than 20% in the first round. It means that 80% of the votes were not for him, and of the 20% remaining, a lot did not want him but just thought he was the best chance against the far-right candidate. Right when Macron was re-elected, you could say that more than 80% of the people who voted did not want him. That's a problem IMO. Not even talking about the US presidents...

SomberSummers 3y ago
> "well, you're in the minority then" 49% minority = get fucked <1% minority = here's your new lords and saviours
- palata 3y ago
  Not sure what you mean. The people in Switzerland votes for a ton of stuff (not just for a president every 4 years). If you manage to always be on the minority, then probably you are doing it on purpose. The norm is that people are sometimes in the minority, sometimes in the majority. That's called consensus, that's what makes for a good democracy IMO. The opposite (again IMO) is a system where the people votes for a president every 4 years, and invades the Capitol when they lose. BTW Switzerland does not have a president, but instead a group of 7 representing the biggest parties in the country. So there is consensus even at the highest level.