Without you providing any of these instances, all I can do is shrug.
Yes, there are certain things politicians can do without public input but even that idea was decided by the public in the first place.
They do not need to hold very many referendums. Expensive and inefficient are relative terms. And what we have is vastly more efficient and inexpensive? lmao
"Direct Democracy: Referendum and Initiative
Frequent referendums on new or changed laws, budgets etc,
- some of them mandatory
- others "facultative" (only if 50,000 citizens demand for it)
Ordinary citizens may propose changes to the constitution ("initiative"), if they can find a number of supporters (100,000 out of about 3,500,000 voters). Parliament will discuss it, probably propose an alternative and afterwards all citizens may decide in a referendum whether to accept the initiative, the alternate proposal or stay without change
While the federal system can be found in many other countries like the U.S.A., Germany, Austria etc., and separation of powers (government, parliament, courts) are common to all democracies (or at least should be), referendums are rare in most other countries. In Switzerland's long tradtion of Direct Democracy, frequent referendums do have a stabilizing influence on parliament and government.
referendums will increase parties' willingness to compromise (otherwise a defeated party will call for a referendum)
referendums favour big coalitions (shared power motivates compromise, exclusion from power motivates obstructive referendums)
referendums increase stability (as extreme laws will be blocked by referendum, parties are less inclined to radical changes in lawmaking and voters are less inclined to call for fundamental changes in elections)
The two chambers of parliament meet several times annually to sessions of several weeks and between them to preparing meetings of numerous commissions. Being member of parliament is not a full time job in Switzerland, contrary to most other countries today. This means, that Swiss members of parliament are closer to everyday life of their electorate."
Either way it is probably one of the most stable countries on the planet, if not the most stable.
Like I said, expense is relative. It's still a lot more efficient than the States. The Swiss get what they pay for and it is one of the best in the world. Insurance coverage is mandatory and if you can only pay for part of it, the gov't chips in the rest. If you cannot pay any, the gov't covers you. And if you can pay for your own coverage, that's allowed, too.
So the States has a problematic system. So, people allow themselves to be manipulated here more than the Swiss do there. That has no bearing upon the Swiss, nor does it mean that direct democracy doesn't work. It took the Swiss a while to figure out how to make it work.
I guess what you are saying is that we are too stupid to make a better system. You may be right, but I doubt it.
Last edited:
