5 ms·

I'd argue that this is unnecessary in Switzerland due to the existing referendum system. After the government passes a new law, opponents have 100 days to coll

by Youden 1y ago

I'd argue that this is unnecessary in Switzerland due to the existing referendum system. After the government passes a new law, opponents have 100 days to collect 50000 signatures. If they manage, the law will not take force until it's approved by a vote by the populace.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
The way authoritarianism work is they pick some enemy to rally against and convince people that the ends of stopping that evil justify the means of becoming evil. The problem with this is that it can garner 51% support within the population for temporary periods of time, so you need a system that can prevent it even in that environment. This typically means that violations of fundamental rights should require significantly more than 51% popular support or require changes in public sentiment to stick for a period of time before they can make foundational changes (e.g. only a third of the US Senate being up for election every two years).
j45 1y ago
Or if there was a law clarifying not to tread on privacy if that’s what the population has latest indicated, this kind of effort wouldn’t always need yo be wasted. Asking the unpaid population to put in free labour all the time seems like a deterrent.
- hluska 1y ago
  Democracy is fundamentally about putting in free labour. That’s just how it works, from the lowliest municipal elections up to federal. It’s a lot of unpaid labour. That system works and has worked for a long time.
  - refactor_master 1y ago
    I think that’s an oversimplification. You can’t take the “free labor of performing democracy” and put it to equally good use doing anything else I can think of. I guess you could work in soup kitchens, but that’s horribly inefficient welfare compared to just electing competent leadership, if the ultimate aim is to benefit The People.
    - j45 1y ago
      Agreed on oversimplification It’s more putting the burden on the people By free labor I meant the bureaucrats who are paid in the otherwise to make the laws
- atkailash 1y ago
  [dead]
SllX 1y ago
> After the government passes a new law, opponents have 100 days to collect 50000 signatures. If they manage, the law will not take force until it's approved by a vote by the populace. I generally hate ballot propositions within the context of California (or American States really, but I put my energy towards the State I actually live in and care the most about), but that's an interesting way to do it. Have there been any significant downsides to this specific clause[1] in Switzerland? [1] Let me emphasize: "this specific clause" being the one I quoted. I'm not looking for a general discussion on all forms of ballot propositions whether pro or anti.
- dbrgn 1y ago
  Downside: Sometimes laws can be delayed for 1+ years due to a referendum. The political process is slower and big reforms are much harder. Upside: Lawmakers need to write balanced laws or they face threats of referendum signature collection from other parties or civil organizations. Often in political discussions you hear that "position X won't stand a chance in a referendum". That is a good thing.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Ah, so the referendum isn’t then scheduled for a date in short order if the requisite signatures are collected but held at the next regularly scheduled election? Fair enough. I like the sound of the upside a lot though.
    - zahllos 1y ago
      Yes, except that the "votations" happen 4x per year. Here are all the next ones: https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/va/vab_1_3_3_1.html https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/va/vab_1_3_3_1.html Each will have 1-4 issues (approx) scheduled. Elections for politicians happen every 5 years, but no need to wait for those. What takes time (for votations) is the process: you have to verify the signatures once they're handed in at the federal chancellery and then decide when to schedule it.
  - zahllos 1y ago

by Youden 1y ago

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

The way authoritarianism work is they pick some enemy to rally against and convince people that the ends of stopping that evil justify the means of becoming evil. The problem with this is that it can garner 51% support within the population for temporary periods of time, so you need a system that can prevent it even in that environment. This typically means that violations of fundamental rights should require significantly more than 51% popular support or require changes in public sentiment to stick for a period of time before they can make foundational changes (e.g. only a third of the US Senate being up for election every two years).

j45 1y ago

Or if there was a law clarifying not to tread on privacy if that’s what the population has latest indicated, this kind of effort wouldn’t always need yo be wasted. Asking the unpaid population to put in free labour all the time seems like a deterrent.

hluska 1y ago
Democracy is fundamentally about putting in free labour. That’s just how it works, from the lowliest municipal elections up to federal. It’s a lot of unpaid labour. That system works and has worked for a long time.
- refactor_master 1y ago
  I think that’s an oversimplification. You can’t take the “free labor of performing democracy” and put it to equally good use doing anything else I can think of. I guess you could work in soup kitchens, but that’s horribly inefficient welfare compared to just electing competent leadership, if the ultimate aim is to benefit The People.
  - j45 1y ago
    Agreed on oversimplification It’s more putting the burden on the people By free labor I meant the bureaucrats who are paid in the otherwise to make the laws
atkailash 1y ago
[dead]

SllX 1y ago

> After the government passes a new law, opponents have 100 days to collect 50000 signatures. If they manage, the law will not take force until it's approved by a vote by the populace. I generally hate ballot propositions within the context of California (or American States really, but I put my energy towards the State I actually live in and care the most about), but that's an interesting way to do it. Have there been any significant downsides to this specific clause[1] in Switzerland? [1] Let me emphasize: "this specific clause" being the one I quoted. I'm not looking for a general discussion on all forms of ballot propositions whether pro or anti.

dbrgn 1y ago
Downside: Sometimes laws can be delayed for 1+ years due to a referendum. The political process is slower and big reforms are much harder. Upside: Lawmakers need to write balanced laws or they face threats of referendum signature collection from other parties or civil organizations. Often in political discussions you hear that "position X won't stand a chance in a referendum". That is a good thing.
- SllX 1y ago
  Ah, so the referendum isn’t then scheduled for a date in short order if the requisite signatures are collected but held at the next regularly scheduled election? Fair enough. I like the sound of the upside a lot though.
  - zahllos 1y ago
    Yes, except that the "votations" happen 4x per year. Here are all the next ones: https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/va/vab_1_3_3_1.html https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/f/pore/va/vab_1_3_3_1.html Each will have 1-4 issues (approx) scheduled. Elections for politicians happen every 5 years, but no need to wait for those. What takes time (for votations) is the process: you have to verify the signatures once they're handed in at the federal chancellery and then decide when to schedule it.
- zahllos 1y ago