Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by usrusr on Sunday June 05, 2016 @01:40PM (#11842080)

It is very common in many places to restrict highly visible outside advertisement (e.g. the Hollywood sign would not have happened in Switzerland). Visual attention-grabbing is considered just as much as annoying as noise. It seems very reasonable to not exclude religious communities from that rule.

I do agree however, that things like minarets should better be left to a general building code addressing the problem of architectural shouting contests without explicitly mentioning religion. The stupidity of having the literal phrase (well, in german) "it is forbidden to erect minarets" in the constitution should serve as a warning to anyone who praises direct democracy all too blindly.

I really don't get it why cases like that are solved with a polar vote (change or no change), not with approval voting offering more than two possible results on different levels of compromise. There seems to be a tiny glimse of it (only on the wiki in german: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppeltes_Ja_mit_Stichfrage ) but that is just three way between no change, proposal and one administrative counter-proposal, which still leaves the door wide open to polarism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by ClayShentrup on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:39PM (#11843744)

Yes, Approval Voting with multiple options would have been better. They did this in Landerd, Holland last year, where voters had six options to select from with regard to how to restructure the municipality (e.g. merge with various bordering municipalities). I believe one of the options was "Status Quo". Voters could select any number of options.

[ Parent | on HN ]