![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere's something curious. As we know, Switzerland is the country of referenda. Almost any issue of some import is decided by a popular vote. There are half a dozen general referenda every year, and many more on a canton level.
Well, the Swiss voters had yet another referendum the other day, where they decided... that democracy has gone too far in this country. They rejected by a huge majority a proposal for organizing referenda on international treaties before they could be approved by Switzerland.
As usual, the devil is in the details. The right-wing nationalists called this referendum, insisting that the Swiss people should have the decisive say whenever their government had to sign an important international agreement. But not even one of the 26 cantons came any close to voting in favor of the proposal, and the idea was rejected by 75% of the voters.
Most mainstream parties were against the proposal right from the onset, because, as one of the billboards said, "Too much democracy kills democracy". That's kind of funny. Reminds me of an eastern proverb, which says "Too much good isn't good".
With half a dozen nationwide referenda annually and a handful on a local level, Switzerland has become a permanently voting country, and granted, an example of direct democracy. The Swiss hold their sovereignty very dear.
The procedure for calling a referendum is very simple really. 50 thousand signatures are enough to call a vote on any draft piece of legislation or agreement that's deemed important for the citizens. If some organization wants to pass a completely new law, the threshold is a bit higher, 100 thousand signatures. Turnout seldom exceeds 40% on these votes (this one got 37.8%), with just a few exceptions, like the infamous referendum that approved the minaret ban.
Some people around here are now joking that we've gotten fed up with democracy, and no extreme ever brings any good in the long run. Well, I don't know. It's not like the really important government decisions, especially those of nationwide significance, wouldn't still be subject to thorough public scrutiny. But indeed, it would seem that sometimes enough is enough.
Well, the Swiss voters had yet another referendum the other day, where they decided... that democracy has gone too far in this country. They rejected by a huge majority a proposal for organizing referenda on international treaties before they could be approved by Switzerland.
As usual, the devil is in the details. The right-wing nationalists called this referendum, insisting that the Swiss people should have the decisive say whenever their government had to sign an important international agreement. But not even one of the 26 cantons came any close to voting in favor of the proposal, and the idea was rejected by 75% of the voters.
Most mainstream parties were against the proposal right from the onset, because, as one of the billboards said, "Too much democracy kills democracy". That's kind of funny. Reminds me of an eastern proverb, which says "Too much good isn't good".
With half a dozen nationwide referenda annually and a handful on a local level, Switzerland has become a permanently voting country, and granted, an example of direct democracy. The Swiss hold their sovereignty very dear.
The procedure for calling a referendum is very simple really. 50 thousand signatures are enough to call a vote on any draft piece of legislation or agreement that's deemed important for the citizens. If some organization wants to pass a completely new law, the threshold is a bit higher, 100 thousand signatures. Turnout seldom exceeds 40% on these votes (this one got 37.8%), with just a few exceptions, like the infamous referendum that approved the minaret ban.
Some people around here are now joking that we've gotten fed up with democracy, and no extreme ever brings any good in the long run. Well, I don't know. It's not like the really important government decisions, especially those of nationwide significance, wouldn't still be subject to thorough public scrutiny. But indeed, it would seem that sometimes enough is enough.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:39 (UTC)Only recently people here have started arriving at the realization that they could actually directly participate in the political process and correct their elected representatives when they stray off the promised policies that they had been elected for.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 19:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 20:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/12 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 03:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/12 23:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 18:28 (UTC)California has the problem where people will say yes to any program on wheels. And no to any way to pay for it. But on a more basic level, it's difficult to have a life and also take the time to stay educated on thousands of issues the government could legitimately make decisions for. And if you have representative government, it's hard to sort all those priorities in a way that actually produces a viable candidate with a mandate.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 19:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 00:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 19:15 (UTC)It's seemed obvious to me that each contest can also only be about a handful of important issues, as voters typically aren't able to organize multiple issues into one candidate. (And yes, we could be unkind and say most voters probably wouldn't want to, but a two man race short circuits that pessimism) You see that in the 'spending' of political capital. A President can't change ALL THE THINGS, so he necessarily splits the difference between his agenda, the support of Congress and the support of the American people. But that also means that we should be careful about regulation that needs constant vigilance, because our government isn't capable of being constantly vigilant. For example, I really feel that the financial crisis was mostly human biases and errors that regulation wasn't going to catch ahead of time. Financial regulations are difficult to do well because it's a growth industry that is going to outgrow the legislative cycle, and while we might not see THIS happen again, people will continue to be painfully optimistic and make stupid financial decisions.
I struggle with the option of doing nothing, because the vast consolidation of wealth is a real risk to the citizens and the country. But I think the cost of 'cutting edge' regulations meant to patch the problem and not the impulse is not going to help as much as people think. People will stop caring, they will get complacent, financial products will change, agency capture will take over, leading not to corruption, but the same blind spots leading to a situation that looks an awful lot like No Regulation.
I dug up this academic article about it (http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ned/Choice_Fatigue.pdf), which I actually have only glanced over to make sure they were using fatigue in the same manner as I do. The study itself seems interesting, but it also references all sorts of other studies that relate to different facets of the theory.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 03:41 (UTC)a mini briefing could be give hourly at each designated voting station/site. i mean, it's kinda a good idea, isn't it?
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 03:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 04:04 (UTC)and yeah! implications too! those too should be included in the briefing! i mean, if more people knew there were going to be fed, then more people will likely show up for dinner....or so i would think (:
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 05:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 05:20 (UTC)Exactly! In the past I've called this "the limits to temporal fungibility." As we are required to spend more time doing things, the amount of time left for doing others decreases. This was pointed out in Bowling Alone, a far-reaching sociological study of decreased community-based activities like bowling leagues (hence the name).
Thomas (something) in Were You Born On The Wrong Continent? noted that while the average person works over 2000 hours per year in the US, in Germany it's more like 1500. This has caused quite a bit of difference between the countries, most notably that people still read large newspapers daily, and thus the average person is still better informed about the issues in his or her area. More people read hard texts just because they are curious about the issue, as well.
Kellogg of cereal fame noted something along these lines years ago. As an experiment, he put one of his factories on reduced shifts, but paid them the same as his other factories, meaning people worked less per day. The increased output almost paid for the extra per-hour wages, but more dramatic was the impact on the surrounding community. Almost immediately there was an increase not just in small businesses outside the factories, but in church and other community activities organized.
I am firmly of the opinion that no good can come to this country without a majority of its citizens learning from this single example and reducing the amount of hours they work. It's impossible to make good decisions if you don't have time to think.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/12 23:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 19:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 20:34 (UTC)I should also point out that he indicated that Switzerland was the source of the idea. (Ohio would never have to consider treaty ratification, of course.)
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 22:05 (UTC)All Swiss citizens aged 18 years or older have been allowed to vote at the federal level since women were granted suffrage on February 7, 1971.
Lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 04:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 07:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 23:58 (UTC)The end of democracy is when monied corporations and banking interests control the government.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 05:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:35 (UTC)