5 ms·

As a Swiss I'm always amazed how in indirect democracies, 'political will' equates to whatever the top ruling people are up to, depending largely on what lobbyi

As a Swiss I'm always amazed how in indirect democracies, 'political will' equates to whatever the top ruling people are up to, depending largely on what lobbyist de jour is paying best as well as the proximity of elections. It's absurd to me to be honest. Why wouldn't you want a system where (a) the final say can always be cast by people's votes and (b) the government is put together proportionally? This basically mitigates both of these problems: (1) Elections become way less important, so the parties don't throw too much money into them - winning 2% every 4 years, in rare cases an additional cabinet member of 7, just doesn't justify putting hundreds of millions into a campaign. (2) Lobbying is worth much less as well since you can't lobby people very easily. And yes, I'm aware that every system has flaws and people's votes aren't always sane - but given the alternatives...

shykes 13y ago
I am extremely interested in direct democracy, and the possibility of using it for larger populations thanks to technology improvements. To my knowledge the main argument against direct democracy has been "it only works for small groups". Could modern computing and telecommunications change that?
- m_mueller 13y ago
  First of all, yes, that's always the argument I hear. That and people not taking Switzerland seriously since it's anyway just Nazi gold and gangster banks enabling us to do what we do, right? Online voting tools could definitely change the cost as well as the legitimacy of running a superpower scale direct democracy. In Switzerland we largely handle it through voting by letter and every commune handles the counting - technically it's certainly possible to have fraud at that point, however at least I'm not aware of any case where a people's vote would have been faked that way. Anyway, for larger scale voting I'd have a look at this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_frau.... E-voting combined with tokens on paper seems to be the winner for me. But don't forget, the stability of the Swiss system doesn't only come from its direct democratic nature, I'd say the principle of proportionality applied to the government, as I mentioned above, is at least as important. In Switzerland this ensures both checks and balances as well as a government that represents the current political views of the parliament. Also, it lead to a multi-party system with 5 larger players and dynamic coalitions depending on the actual issue. Together with the constant fear of the people's vote this handles most issues quite neatly - even if the process tends to be a bit slower, the output of 'bullshit' is much lower than the things I read from abroad if you will.
- scilro 13y ago
  The main argument against direct democracy is the danger of majoritarian oppression: e.g. imagine calling a vote to reinstate slavery and succeeding because 51% of the population supports slavery. Having a set of laws like the Bill of Rights that is agreed upon by consensus and enforced by courts is a safeguard against that.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    There's nothing in direct democracy inconsistent with a constitution securing basic rights and a supreme court enforcing it. Indeed, Switzerland has exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution The main argument against, as I see it, is the lack of accountability, the prime example being California demanding more spending and lower taxes at the same time. Of course, indirect democracy has done very little to prevent that either. When Switzerland doesn't pass laws similar to California's, I think it's because they have a much more homogenous society where there is simply a large degree of agreement on how things should be done - and so, the remaining bits lend themselves well to be decided by direct democracy. That's also my response to the GP: no, no amount of interwebs and technology can turn a large and diverse population that disagrees fundamentally on many important issues into a small and homogenous one that agrees on most things.
    - rdouble 13y ago
      The Swiss aren't homogeneous, though. They have four official languages and 20% of the country are resident foreigners. The various cantons don't often agree with each other and only 30-40% of the country votes.
      - m_mueller 13y ago
        Thank you. Here it is again, the 'US isn't homogeneous' excuse.
  - bicknergseng 13y ago
    It's not like representative democracy stops this... See 1865-1965.
ronaldx 13y ago
Although I would criticise my own system just as heavily as you do, the Swiss system is not exactly idyllic either: right-wing propaganda led the Swiss people into banning minarets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzer...
- m_mueller 13y ago
  As I mentioned - people's votes aren't always sane. That being said the Minaret thing was a non sensical outcome, yes, but it doesn't really change that much. Mosks are still allowed and the Muslim community didn't seem to bother too much. I'm convinced that if the initiative were to forbid mosks or any essential part of Muslim religion, the result would have been completely different.
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    Looking at recent referendum topics, it seems to me that the right-wing Swiss People's Party have a lot of power and skill in choosing referenda that appeal to a mob majority against vulnerable minorities. e.g. the June 2013 referendum also has an astounding result, on Asylum law changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum%2C_2013#Asylum_law_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum%2C_2013#Asylu...
nnnnni 13y ago
I'm really conflicted about indirect vs direct democracies. On one hand, indirect democracies allow the ruling few to impose their will rather than the will of the people. On the other hand, many people are ignorant of the facts and could be persuaded to vote poorly (eg against the best interests of the majority) in a direct democracy.
- likeclockwork 13y ago
  Then the people will have to live with and hopefully learn from the consequences of their decisions.

shykes 13y ago

I am extremely interested in direct democracy, and the possibility of using it for larger populations thanks to technology improvements. To my knowledge the main argument against direct democracy has been "it only works for small groups". Could modern computing and telecommunications change that?

m_mueller 13y ago
First of all, yes, that's always the argument I hear. That and people not taking Switzerland seriously since it's anyway just Nazi gold and gangster banks enabling us to do what we do, right? Online voting tools could definitely change the cost as well as the legitimacy of running a superpower scale direct democracy. In Switzerland we largely handle it through voting by letter and every commune handles the counting - technically it's certainly possible to have fraud at that point, however at least I'm not aware of any case where a people's vote would have been faked that way. Anyway, for larger scale voting I'd have a look at this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_frau.... E-voting combined with tokens on paper seems to be the winner for me. But don't forget, the stability of the Swiss system doesn't only come from its direct democratic nature, I'd say the principle of proportionality applied to the government, as I mentioned above, is at least as important. In Switzerland this ensures both checks and balances as well as a government that represents the current political views of the parliament. Also, it lead to a multi-party system with 5 larger players and dynamic coalitions depending on the actual issue. Together with the constant fear of the people's vote this handles most issues quite neatly - even if the process tends to be a bit slower, the output of 'bullshit' is much lower than the things I read from abroad if you will.
scilro 13y ago
The main argument against direct democracy is the danger of majoritarian oppression: e.g. imagine calling a vote to reinstate slavery and succeeding because 51% of the population supports slavery. Having a set of laws like the Bill of Rights that is agreed upon by consensus and enforced by courts is a safeguard against that.
- mseebach 13y ago
  There's nothing in direct democracy inconsistent with a constitution securing basic rights and a supreme court enforcing it. Indeed, Switzerland has exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution The main argument against, as I see it, is the lack of accountability, the prime example being California demanding more spending and lower taxes at the same time. Of course, indirect democracy has done very little to prevent that either. When Switzerland doesn't pass laws similar to California's, I think it's because they have a much more homogenous society where there is simply a large degree of agreement on how things should be done - and so, the remaining bits lend themselves well to be decided by direct democracy. That's also my response to the GP: no, no amount of interwebs and technology can turn a large and diverse population that disagrees fundamentally on many important issues into a small and homogenous one that agrees on most things.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    The Swiss aren't homogeneous, though. They have four official languages and 20% of the country are resident foreigners. The various cantons don't often agree with each other and only 30-40% of the country votes.
    - m_mueller 13y ago
      Thank you. Here it is again, the 'US isn't homogeneous' excuse.
- bicknergseng 13y ago
  It's not like representative democracy stops this... See 1865-1965.

ronaldx 13y ago

Although I would criticise my own system just as heavily as you do, the Swiss system is not exactly idyllic either: right-wing propaganda led the Swiss people into banning minarets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzer...

m_mueller 13y ago
As I mentioned - people's votes aren't always sane. That being said the Minaret thing was a non sensical outcome, yes, but it doesn't really change that much. Mosks are still allowed and the Muslim community didn't seem to bother too much. I'm convinced that if the initiative were to forbid mosks or any essential part of Muslim religion, the result would have been completely different.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Looking at recent referendum topics, it seems to me that the right-wing Swiss People's Party have a lot of power and skill in choosing referenda that appeal to a mob majority against vulnerable minorities. e.g. the June 2013 referendum also has an astounding result, on Asylum law changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum%2C_2013#Asylum_law_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum%2C_2013#Asylu...

nnnnni 13y ago

I'm really conflicted about indirect vs direct democracies. On one hand, indirect democracies allow the ruling few to impose their will rather than the will of the people. On the other hand, many people are ignorant of the facts and could be persuaded to vote poorly (eg against the best interests of the majority) in a direct democracy.

likeclockwork 13y ago
Then the people will have to live with and hopefully learn from the consequences of their decisions.