Is the Swiss way of doing things better?

[rov1200]

With the British parliament in chaos and voters unable to put trust of important decisions in their hands is it time to put the power into ordinary British citizens as practiced by the Swiss people? By having referendums on important issues true democracy can emerge. Switzerland is the most stable country on Earth!


Definition of Swiss Direct Democracy
Direct Democracy can be defined as a form or system of democracy giving citizens an extraodinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination".

[jno]

all women have been able to vote in Switzerland since... 1990. The benefits of democracy!

[JockSporran]

I have always believed in particaptory democracy. The system we have just now means that we vote for a group of people to run the country on our behalf. Once in power, they can pass laws without consulting us. That isn't democracy, it's an elected dictatorship.

[marval]

I am off to Switzerland, bye.

[jason.p]

Sounds good for perhaps the big issues, but I think it could be a cumbersome way of making decisions, and how is it decided which issues warrant a referendum.

My main worry however would be how a politically biased press (like we have here) could influence public opinion and therefore any referendum result.

[anotheoldgit]

My main worry however would be how a politically biased press (like we have here) could influence public opinion and therefore any referendum result.

Well doesn't that same press influence public opinion now, especially around voting time, so what is the difference?

I would much rather have a chance to have my say in important issues, even if I might be swayed a certain amount by the media, at least in the end it would be my choice no matter what.

[jason.p]

You're quite right AOG. I'm afraid I'm just very cynical about the power (and it's abuse) of the press. It's bad enough to have an election "manipulated", but then to have that elected government's decisions at the mercy of the press barons is disturbing. As you say, having a say in these decisions is how democracy should work. If more people took a real interest in the issues and looked beyond the newspaper headlines before making their decisions, then we would be a step nearer true democracy, but I know that is unlikely.
Perhaps more people should join AB and read through some of the posts to get a more balanced view!!

[Oneeyedvic]

How many people really understand the impact of joining the Euro.

i class myself as pretty politically and economically aware and I am still undecided as to its potential benefits / pitfalls.

Personally, I wouldn't want people voting in a referendum on it as most people don't understand the implications.

As Churchill once said (or something similar) the more I meet the electorate, the more I don't think they should be entitled to a vote

[rov1200]

"how is it decided which issues warrant a referendum."

We have currently a system where any member of the public can put forward a petition on the no. 10 website. If enough supported it it could be made into a general referendum Rember that partition where 2 million registered about the high cost of the fuel increase. The government did nothing about it!

[rov1200]

The British people have in the past been denied any input into important decisions that affect the future of us all. In fact some of the cabinet government have not been able to add there comments. This is not what democracy is about. Take a few recent examples:

1. Whether to remain in the EU
2. Britain joining the Euro
3. Sending a higher proportion of our troops to Afghanistan
4. Taking part in the Iraq war
5. ID cards
6. Innocents on the National DNA data base.

There are many more! Just a few people decide on our behalf. Some of these have been corrupted by the system and gained much personal financial benefit as a result.

[rov1200]

A recent referendum in action: 'Who's got talent'

The expected contestant Susan Boyle was expected to win as she's now an international star and the press have oozed praise and pages of footage on her. So you would have thought a certain winner. But no she came second. Does this not prove the press has less influence than people imagine?

[Quinlad]

No. The opposite.

The press spent the days before the final trashing her. There were accusations that she'd become abusive and too big for her boots. That's why she was booed by the studio audience.

The media set the agenda and the public dutifully towed the line.

[Gromit]

Switzerland is a very small country. It's population is less than Greater London. For a country our size, the cost would be tremendous.

Only about 40% of Switzerland's population typically bother to vote.

[jno]

yup, pretty soon someone would demand a referendum on banning any more expensive referendums, and that would be that

[rov1200]

""For a country our size, the cost would be tremendous.""

It would have been just a few years ago but with internet in over 80% of homes? Also referendums would only be for major issues, not the price of bread.

[rov1200]

Vernon Bogdanor, CBE, FBA (born 1943) is professor of government at Oxford University, England, and a fellow of Brasenose College. He is one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts

Has instructed many senior politicians and believes in more direct democracy. This could take the form of referendums. Who am I to argue?

[Gromit]

80% of households do have access to the internet? It is nearer 65%, and there are regional variations, the North East for example, 50% do not have the internet.

Are you seriously advocating voting online. No country in the world allows this because the risk of election fraud and the difficulties in verifying a) the result, and b) that the person online is who they say they are. It might be alright for voting in a TV talent contest, but not for running the country. There is also the fact that many older people are not internet savvy at all.

We only have elections once every 5 years and the turnout is for the last one was 61%. Why do you think that voters would turn out more if they had to do it 4 times a year (As in Switzerland), especially as the only 40% of the Swiss bother?

[Gromit]

rov1200

On closer inspection, the Swiss system is probably the least successful in the world. Voter participation is the lowest in the developed world.

"The very low Swiss voter turnout rate (36 per cent) reflects citizen perception that voting has little impact on how the country is run, according to political scientist Mark Franklin.

Voter fatigue is another reason cited for low Swiss voter turnout�it is not unusual for a Swiss citizen to be asked to go to the polls as many as 10 times in a single year for a variety of national and local elections, as well as referendums."

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/soci ety/voter-turnout.aspx#_ftn9

[pinktwink]

in ireland we have referendums on important issues like divorce, abortion, the EU, lisbon treatys etc. It still doesnt stop corruption though

[rov1200]

No system could be made foolproof. The present corrupt system always seems to achieve the wrong result. Also the flip flopping between parties makes us look like differers. Shall we join the EU? It took us decades after De Gaulle to actually enter. Most sensible European nations have joined the Euro but our flip flopping on the subject means we will always be on the sidelines.

We should cut across all party boundaries and take a snapshot of how the British people feel and this can only be done by a referendum.