Do you think there is a risk passing a referendum resolution that passed just by a small margin?
I have been thinking about this since the result of Austrian presidental elections, and how more polarized the politics in Europe is becoming, while trying to figure out if there is a way how to move politics to a a place where it would strive for finding society-wide consensus and compromise on most issues.
As a Swiss, I would say a high number of referenda works against polarization. This Sunday, we had to vote on five national questions and additional local ones. This high number of questions makes it very unlikely that you agree on everything even with your family and best friends. Thus, we automatically learn to disagree without getting polarized.
My grand-father always encouraged his children to vote even though he knew they nomrally had different opinions and "neutralized" his vote. To him, voting at all was much more important than what the vote was, as long as you vote for what you honestly believe is right. I fully share this view.
That said, further referendums on the question of immigration, for example automatically expelling convicted foreigners after their sentence is complete were fairly convincingly rejected. From the Swiss I know, most consider the referendum process to be fairly normal and routine. They receive information booklets presenting both sides of the argument, the view from the government and the view from any political parties who are interested. They make their decision and they decide.
It is difficult to explain I think unless you've seen it in action. I am from the UK and we are currently in the middle of the Brexit/Remain campaign. There's not an iota of fact or reason in the current debate and our politicians do things like predict WWIII if we leave and waves of Turkish immigrants if we remain. The whole thing is moronic and embarrassing. There are without a doubt some stupid things said/done here (the black sheep poster by the SVP for example) but the level of political discourse is no way near the level of stupidity in the UK IMO. If you're imagining Trump-esque campaigns every few months, it's basically the polar opposite. Unless you speak the local language and know what you're looking at, you'd hardly notice. At best you will see billboard or two amidst the other adverts and perhaps receive an information leaflet in the post. That's it. Perhaps the Swiss guy or girl above might say it is more obvious perhaps, if you have more Swiss friends than I do or watch a lot of TV, but I don't think, from what I have seen, that it is anywhere near as vitriolic as any other country I know.
Source: I'm British and I live in a French-speaking Canton (in spite of my username).
In the US, many vilify their political opponents as crazy and/or morally inferior. This has happened around referendums. We also try to get civic organizations to adopt politicized codes of conduct and have politicized social media campaigns to kick people out of civic organizations. I hope Switzerland doesn't have those horrors.
From my experience even young people are able to have healthy discussions about "difficult" topics and then just proceed with life.
This topic clearly led to some interesting discussions where some had very radical thoughts to, but i saw no friendships breaking so far.
As someone who lived in a while in Austria it is completely different there. I've seen people punched in the face for less aggressive political motives in the public.
In 1890 the constitution was changed by popular vote to give the federal government the authority and duty to establish a health care system, either voluntary or mandatory.
A project for mandatory accident and health insurance passed the parliament in 1899, but a referendum was requested and the proposed law was rejected by popular vote in 1900.
A new law was passed in 1911, keeping the mandatory accident insurance but leaving the states free to make health insurance voluntary or mandatory. This law survived a referendum in 1912.
Attempts at revising the health insurance law failed in the 20's, 40's and 50's.
A popular initiative for mandatory health insurance failed the vote in 1974. A counter-project submitted by the government, with mandatory coverage for large risks only, also failed the vote.
Finally, another popular initiative for mandatory health insurance is deposited in 1986. The government prepares an indirect counter-project, resulting in a law that includes mandatory health insurance. The law is adopted by the parliament in March 1994, but a referendum is requested. Both the initiative and the referendum on the law are submitted to a popular vote in December 1994. The initiative fails by 76.6% "no" while the counter-project passes by 51.8% "yes".
Now countries like Finland is looking into it.
I am pretty confident we are going to end up there, but like many other major changes in society it takes time and thats fine.
Maybe 1500 would get more people to vote for it, or something else chagned, etc.
> 1. The Confederation has to implement a basic income.
> 2. This basic income has to be sufficient to live in dignity and participate to public life.
> 3. The basic income amount and financing are regulated by law.
Nothing regarding the exact amount. Swiss people were asked to vote on an idea, not on a specific amount.
You could live with 1500 if you really wanted to. Its not impossible.
As a (tentative) supporter of basic income, I'm already quite happy that something like a fifth to a quarter of voters went for it.