Direct Democracy

[Grisu]

I agree it only tends to work in small populations,....

I don't know why people keep repeating this. I know Switzerland is small, but not that small that you can speak of a really small population, IMHO. It's not like everybody knows each other, here

The best decision for a country as a whole is not necessarily the best decision for the majority of the people in that country.

agreed, but that doesn't necessary speak against referendums. we had plenty of votes where people voted against their direct interest. For example, a few years back there was a vote to reduce the work time to 36h/week (everybody likes to work less, right?). the suggestions was shot down by the people. I looked at some passed popular initiatives, and I couldn't find one where I could see some mob-rule pattern

 

[Grisu]

Given that most voters get their information from sensationalist media, I really don't want them making important decisions.

Say what you want about politicians, but they're much better informed (in general) than the lion's share of the electorate.

Representational democracy is best. Populism is just plain scary.

but if you believe the media is that powerful, do you really believe that if they can turn a vote their way, they couldn't just get there candidated in parliament which then in turn vote their way?

sure populism is a scary thing. but representative systems just move this problem to another place, they don't remove it.

 

[The Yankee]

that's exactly the point. most laws are passed without any big opposition, so they would go through easily, it's just the controversial ones where there is a referendum.

But then again, the US has so many party-line votes that there may be hundreds of these things every year. Which would mean that there is more of a chance of Big Money playing their hands into the mix. Perhaps a unique problem of American politics, but a reality nonetheless.

And if you say two million signatures would be required, well, then surely a big political action committee with the resources will find the two million to ram through whatever they may please. And the opposition could find another two million.

 

[Grisu]

But then again, the US has so many party-line votes that there may be hundreds of these things every year. Which would mean that there is more of a chance of Big Money playing their hands into the mix. Perhaps a unique problem of American politics, but a reality nonetheless.

IMHO that's more because of the two-party system you have, and doesn't really have anything to do with representative or direct democracy. here, most poeple don't show that kind of loyalty towards their party, it's quite common to vote against your party on a specific issue. Personally, I believe that this is a direct effect of our system, and other states that implement this system would find a trend away from partisan politics. Take me for instance, I have certainly agreed with any given party at least once (and thus voted their way) and I have disagreed with every single party as well at least once. This is nothing special here, most people do it that way

And if you say two million signatures would be required, well, then surely a big political action committee with the resources will find the two million to ram through whatever they may please. And the opposition could find another two million.

Can't quite follow you there. So big money could find the resources to get 2M signatures. So what? It just means that there will be a vote on the issue, not that it automatically gets enacted. So if the people then reject the idea, their pumping in money was all in vain. Initiatives that are actively backed by Big Money are pretty rare here, and I don't think it's because swiss companies are that much more moral It just doesn't pay out, if the people aren't sure that it's good for the country

 

[Winner]

Well, I am very sceptical about direct or even semi-dierct democracy. I am also very cautious if anybody wants to adapt Swiss concepts to another country

I simply don't think that people (voters) are intelligent/educated enough to actually directly run the state.

 

[sysyphus]

but if you believe the media is that powerful, do you really believe that if they can turn a vote their way, they couldn't just get there candidated in parliament which then in turn vote their way?

sure populism is a scary thing. but representative systems just move this problem to another place, they don't remove it.

As a cornerstone of my point, the elected representatives are much more informed than are the public (hence why the media can influence the public so effectively).

It may not remove the problem, but it greatly reduces it.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

that's what I meant with my reference to universal sufferage under inertia. I do believe, however, that one bad example (and a special ones, as a affected citizend weren't allowed to vote on it....) doesn't prove the whole system wrong. The system has served us well so far, and it's not just by chance that switzerland has had one of the most stable political systems in the last 100 years.

I'd argue that that stability has more to do with the 1815 Viennese Congress reaffirming Switzerland's neutrality, therefore allowing it to exist without interference from its neighbors. My point about plebiscites is that they don't guarantee any sort of public justice. I'm sure it works in its own way for Switzerland, but I would hesitate to use it for any other country.

that's exactly where I disagree. first of, the athenian state wasn't semi-direct IIRC.
secondly, so if the demagogue convinces 50'000 in one minute, so what? it just means that there will be a vote on it, he'll have to convince many more if he wants his idea to pass. and if he can do that, he sure can get his party elected and pass the laws himself in a representative system.

Because there will always be someone else who would convince some other group of 50,000 the opposite.

Furthermore, I'd say that the policy of a country is much more consistant with a semi-direct approach. just take the US vs. Switzerland. Every time the ruling party changes in the US, many laws that were passed by their predecessors get struck down, or watered down. Such things rarely happen here. Here you can be pretty sure, that if a law gets passed or a treaty signed it will hold for quite some time, and not just till the next administration moves into the white house.

That's not what happens here. When a new party is voted into office, national priorities change. The laws that the previous administration enacted are rarely altered. It's almost impossible for laws to be changed so rapidly because there are so many tiers of government. Maybe you're thinking about parliamentary systems, which we don't have here.

What you are suggesting is that a plebiscite functions as a kind of 4th branch of government, in checks and balances. As I said, this may work itself out somehow in Switzerland, but I doubt it would work anywhere else. It may work in Switzerland because the population is more homogenous, and so it is less likely for people of different cantons to have widely differing opinions. In larger nations, this would be a dangerous assumption. From what I understand, Switzerland is more conservative than most of Europe, so whenever plebiscites are held, they are usually to prevent an action, rather than to call for a new action. This may explain why women did not have the right to vote in Switzerland until recently.

 

[warmonger]

I voted for the Swiss type system. I live there but I'm not Swiss.

I have lived under roughly 6 different politcal systems and the Swiss is by far the best because it removes the stupidity of two party politics.

As in "Do I vote right for the fiscal conservative, small government, free trade goodies but get anti-gay, pro life, enviromental rape along with it OR do I vote left and get the environmnetal protection, the liberal lifestyle, and get big government, high taxes and nanny state legislation along with the bargain."

In the Swiss system, I can vote for the group that is somewhat close to my thinking and stop them from doing their worst (or even make them do the rest by citizen referendum)

Great system and no problem to scale up.