Unfortunately, that's not how Switzerland operates, because it's a very direct democracy where the status quo and the will of the majority takes priority over common sense and long term thinking. Full franchise (women being allowed to vote) didn't happen in all cantons until the 1990s (after it being made possible in the 1970s), because the existing voters (men) just voted against it.

▲

qcnguy 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's because women themselves voted against it. Which is actually the history of the female franchise everywhere. The suffragettes were reduced to bombing campaigns because fellow women did not agree that women should be allowed to vote. In the UK it was only WW1 that changed things. Maybe in the UK female franchise would also have been much delayed if not for the huge social upheavals caused by the world wars.

▲

n4r9 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> women themselves voted against it

Do you have a source for this? According to Wikipedia,

> An earlier referendum on women's suffrage was held on 1 February 1959 and was rejected by the majority (67%) of Switzerland's men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...

▲

tzs 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> That's because women themselves voted against it

That's rather confusing. If women didn't have the right to vote, how would they be able to vote on the question of whether or not to grant women the right to vote?

	▲	1718627440 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Public opinion and newspaper influence. I think the idea that any policy is about a male/female divide is wrong. I also think, that women in the past having no influence on politics only because they weren't putting their name on documents, is flawed.

▲

lclc 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, how horrible when people get to have a say. Where will this end? In the case of Switzerland, it's ending up as one of the wealthiest countries, with a median wealth of $182,248 per adult.

Also, since when is a political ruling class known for long-term thinking?

Besides, cars are already taxed based on weight/power (what you considered common sense).

▲

dkiebd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I completely reject the notion that direct democracy is bad because Politicians Know Better. It’s borderline if not completely authoritarian and frankly disgusting.

Maybe consider that Switzerland is one of the best if not the best country in the world because people can choose what they want it to be.

▲

Avicebron 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This issue with direct democracies is that the they can get out of hand pretty fast unless your population is somewhat homogenous and reasonable. Aka Switzerland. If you're too young to remember twitch plays Pokémon, that's direct democracy and it was wild.

A direct democracy could decide tomorrow that we wanted to fuck China sideways with nukes because it's funny and based all because a tiktok went viral.

▲

1718627440 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think people rule differently depending on how much impact it has. People claiming "We should nuke them" knowing it will never happen is very different from them really deciding on that matter.

▲

sofixa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> This issue with direct democracies is that the they can get out of hand pretty fast unless your population is somewhat homogenous and reasonable. Aka Switzerland

Sorry, but that's just a racist dogwhistle. Switzerland has four main ethnic groups, and has had multiple rounds of migration (e.g. after the Yugoslav wars). Look at their various national sporting teams. Just because you can't look past people's skin colour that doesn't make them "homogeneous".

You need an educated and engaged populace that understands their civic duties.

▲

Avicebron a day ago | parent [-]

I left out race specifically to plumb for people whose mind jumps and fixates on that

> educated and engaged populace that understands their civic duties.

This describes a homogeneous group. An environment that cultivates this unilaterally (relative to an arbitrary standard), is by definition more homogeneous than one that does not. It's a politics, standard of living, and equality economics dogwhistle that has nothing to do with race.

	▲	sofixa a day ago \| parent [-]
		> This describes a homogeneous group No, it doesn't. People being educated doesn't make them homogeneous.

▲

sofixa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I completely reject the notion that direct democracy is bad because Politicians Know Better

Not politicians, experts and administrators.

And yes, most people are limited in knowledge and vision. Look no further than Brexit, where the average UK citizen couldn't comprehend the complexity of the situation or the question, yet voted. The most asked question on Google the day after the vote was what is the EU... And it took years to begin to untangle the mess.

And again, look at Switzerland and their human rights travesty of not allowing half their population to vote because the existing voters said no.

▲

dotancohen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Even disregarding your quip about when women got the vote, your post reads like another anti-Western agenda post that has become very popular in the past two years.

▲

bondarchuk 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's true though, quite amazingly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...

▲

dotancohen 3 days ago | parent [-]

Why do you double down on this when I specifically disregarded that aspect of your comment from my post?

And why is pointing out anti-Western agenda posts always met with multiple simultaneous downvotes, whereas my other unpopular opinions are downvoted one by one?

	▲	mikestew 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And why is pointing out anti-Western agenda… Perhaps folks don’t feel as if that’s what you’re actually pointing out. The post you replied to was referring to the direct democracy of Switzerland, not castigating all of Western society. I mean, from my point of view, by “disregarding” you basically ignored the entire point of the comment to support a narrative.
	▲	bondarchuk 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Because I (different person btw) was curious about whether it was true, that's all, no further "agenda". There's some discussion on the talk page btw about whether or not it is indeed attributable to direct democracy btw.
	▲	rented_mule 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> And why is pointing out anti-Western agenda posts always met with multiple simultaneous downvotes Maybe because acknowledging flaws in "y" is not necessarily "anti-y"? In fact, it is often "pro-y". I want to improve things I care about. A critical part of that is identifying flaws so they can be learned from and sometimes fixed.