How Often Do the Swiss Vote?

On average, a Swiss voter is called to the ballot box four times a year to vote on referendums or initiatives. The number of national measures that appear on ballots over the course of the year is between five and fifteen. In addition to this, voters face anywhere between ten and twenty-five local and cantonal issues annually.

What Do the Swiss Vote on?

Since 1989, more than 200 different issues have been subject to a nationwide popular vote. The highest voter turnout has been for votes on European integration, transportation, the environment, foreigners and social services. The most common subjects for votes have been the governing system, transportation, social services, environmental issues and healthcare.

Who Is Winning?

The federal government is on the winning side in more than two-thirds of all votes. Most citizens’ initiatives do not achieve the double majority requirement (a majority of the people and of the cantons). About half of the popular referendums of laws are approved.

The “Wandelhalle” at the parliamentary building—the unofficial place of decision-making (Image Credit: © Parliamentary Services 3003 Berne)

Turnout Rates Are Hard to Compare

Switzerland and the United States are ranked similarly in international measures of political participation. Similarly low. About 50% of eligible Swiss participate in federal elections, about the same as in the U.S. In other Western countries, the participation rates exceed 75%. One Swiss explanation for this phenomenon is all the opportunities for Swiss citizens to have a say each year. Most Swiss citizens participate only when they are interested in a certain issue and feel they know enough to make a decision.

Among the Most Active Countries

In a recent survey, 87% of Swiss citizens declared that they have participated in at least one of the popular votes on initiatives and referendums in the last year (52% participated in at least 70% of the votes; 33% participated in all of them). This means that more than eight out of ten Swiss citizens vote at least once a year. By this measure, Switzerland, despite its low turnout rate, is a leader in political participation since many countries do not have elections every year.

Top Left Chart: The Swiss’ interest in politics is quite high compared to most other European countries. / Bottom Right Chart: The Swiss are highly satisfied with the way democracy works in their country. (Image Credits: Data Source: European Social Survey Round 4 Data (2008). Data file edition 3.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway—Data Archive and distributor of ESS data / Data Source: European Social Survey Round 4 Data (2008). Data file edition 3.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway—Data Archive and distributor of ESS data)

Contented Losers!

Swiss citizens are highly satisfied with the way democracy works in their country. This is true even of those on the losing side of popular votes on issues. Asked to evaluate their system on a 10-point scale, two out of three Swiss give a score of 7 or higher. Only 7% chose a score between 0 and 3 points (see graph). In other highly developed European democracies such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, a minority of voters gave their democracies a score of between 7 and 10.

Linguistic Groups

Switzerland is a genuinely multicultural society. It has four national languages. It has immigrants from every corner of the world. And more than 1.7 million foreigners live in Switzerland, 22 percent of the population. (That is slightly higher than the non-citizenship rate in famously diverse California.) For 63.7% of Switzerland’s inhabitants, German is the native language. The figures are 20.4% for French, 6.5% for Italian and 0.5% for Rumantsch. Nine percent of Switzerland’s residents have another mother tongue.

The Swiss Federal Chancellery includes a linguistic services division, which is responsible for easy access to official documents in all national languages. (Image Credit: © Swiss Federal Chancellery)

The Importance of Being Heard

The Swiss practice has been to integrate via political institutions–and with infrastructure designed to support minority groups. First, the Swiss government argues that the country’s federalist system and its direct democracy offer avenues for minorities to be heard. Second, the government assists people from all language groups, including in their use of the initiative and referendum process. Modern direct democracy is a crucial element of political integration in the country.

The Swiss U-17 world cup winners talking to the Swiss minister for sports in the Federal Palace. Many of the kickers have foreign roots. (Image Credit: © Keystone)

Regional Political Rights

The rights of noncitizens in Switzerland have long been a subject of debate. Except for rejected asylum seekers, noncitizens have the same social and economic rights and duties as Swiss citizens. But the political arena is different. Noncitizens have no political rights at the national level. But there are some cantons and municipalities where they may exercise political rights such as voting and signing direct democracy petitions. For example:

• Non-citizens have political rights at the cantonal and communal levels in Jura and Neuchâtel

• Non-citizens have political rights at the communal level in Vaud, Geneva, and Fribourg.

• Some municipalities – Appenzell OuterRhodes, Graubünden, Basel Town – can decide on their own about introducing such rights for non-citizens.

Members of an immigrant association sitting in front of a picture showing a mosque in Tetovo, Macedonia. (Image Credit: © Beat Schweizer)

Swiss Votes on Immigration Issues

The Swiss people have generally followed the recommendations of the Federal Council and the Parliament in votes on immigration issues. The voters accepted new laws on asylum and on foreigners, and approved several submissions on the free movement of persons with the European Union. But the people have always disagreed with the authorities on one policy: all draft laws to ease naturalization of foreigners have been rejected by the people.

Linguistic Groups

With the growth of international law and political globalization, new questions are being raised over conflicts between laws made locally, nationally and internationally. These questions themselves raise concerns about the validity of direct-democracy decisions.

Globalization led to tensions between international regulations and sovereignty. (Image Credit: © FDFA, Presence Switzerland)

Initiatives are rarely declared invalid by the parliament. (Image Credit: © Parliamentary Services 3003 Berne)

The relationship of international and national law is hotly debated in Switzerland. (Image Credit: © FDFA, Presence Switzerland)

Examples

In 1992, a citizens’ initiative demanding a more restrictive policy on the granting of asylum to foreigners was submitted to the Swiss Parliament. This initiative would have required the immediate expulsion of illegal asylum seekers to their home countries. This procedure would have been in conflict with international law on the treatment of asylum seekers. For that reason, the Parliament declared the initiative invalid in 1996. In Switzerland, the Parliament decides whether an initiative that is submitted is valid. (Switzerland does not have a constitutional court–as the United States does—that can overrule initiatives.) There are three criteria that may lead to a disqualification of a citizens’ initiative:

• Violation of the principle of unity of form: initiatives can be presented in the form either of a general proposal or of a detailed, precisely worded draft. But not both.

• Violation of the principle of unity of subject matter: the proposal must restrict itself to a specific subject matter.

• Violation of mandatory rules of international law.

Questions Raised

These issues have led to an enduring national debate on the options and limits of citizens’ initiatives. Among the questions discussed are the following:

• Must citizens’ initiatives also respect nonmandatory international law?

• Must citizens’ initiatives respect bilateral agreements between Switzerland and other countries?

• Who should decide whether a citizens’ initiative is valid or not? Politicians (as is the case now)? Or a court?

• Should there be an ombudsman to prevent “useless” or “dangerous” initiatives?

Voting Often

Oregon and California are the two most prolific states when it comes to producing ballot initiatives. In Oregon, there have been 352 initiatives statewide since 1902. The state also holds the record for the most citizens’ initiatives on the ballot in a single year: 27 in 1912. Oregon had so many initiatives in the first decade of the 20th century that curbs were enacted to reduce the number. For a half century, there were few measures. But rules were loosened again in the late 1960s, and the number of initiatives has rebounded. California narrowly trails Oregon’s record on numbers. Some 338 initiatives qualified for the California ballot between 1911 and 2010.

When You Vote

Unlike Switzerland, which has a separate calendar for initiative and referendum votes, California and Oregon have merged their initiative and referendum votes with elections for candidates. Both states hold two elections every two years.

(Image Credit: © Bruno Kaufmann) 

Saying No

Californians and Oregonians are reluctant to approve citizens’ initiatives. Of the 338 initiatives on the ballot in California over the past century, only 112 were approved. Forty-six of them were constitutional amendments. In Oregon, of the 352 initiatives, 120 have passed.

The Process Is Broadly Popular

Polls show that more than two-thirds of voters in each state approve of the initiative process. But there has been growing sentiment for reforming the initiative in both states. Over the past decade, Oregon lawmakers and voters have made substantive changes to the initiative process. Californians, despite debating a number of reform proposals, have left the process as it is.

Well-Known Measures

It is hard to single out important legislation or amendments enacted by initiative in these states since so much has been done by initiative. Oregon used the process to enact women’s suffrage, to establish the eight-hour workday, to permit public power, and to protect the state’s waterways. Californians most famously used the process in 1978 to pass Prop 13, a far-reaching measure that limited property taxes, restricted the ability of the legislature to raise taxes, and stripped local governments of some fiscal power. The initiative remade the state, and thirty years later remains popular and controversial. Prop 13 is also credited with launching the current era of anti-tax politics in the United States.

(Image Credit: © Bruno Kaufmann)  

Voting Often

Who Participates?

One must be a citizen of the United States to vote in American elections, including statewide initiative and referendum elections. To vote or to sign a referendum or initiative petition, citizens must be registered, and significant minorities of citizens choose not to register.

(Image Credit: © Bruno Kaufmann)   

Languages

California is one of three states with a requirement that voter information pamphlets be printed in languages other than English. California prints in five languages in addition to English; Arizona and Colorado in two. Oregon has no such requirement.

Does Direct Democracy Threaten Human Rights?

Matters of discrimination and human rights may be the subject of ballot initiatives and referendums. But there has been considerable criticism of this practice. California has a long history of direct democratic actions that were criticized as discriminatory, from votes that limited the rights of Asian immigrants in the early 20th century to a 1994 citizens’ initiative to limit public benefits for immigrants to the 2008 initiative constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In such cases, the groups hurt by such initiatives have sought to strike down the initiative in the courts. In general, however, courts have been reluctant to overrule the will of the people. In addition, there have sometimes been conflicts between federal law and state initiatives. One source of conflict has been more liberal laws on marijuana usage approved by voters in some states. The federal government has tolerated marijuana distribution and possession in California despite U.S. laws against it, though the issue remains volatile.

Turnout

Oregon has one of the highest participation rates in the United States among the population eligible to vote. In the 2010 general elections, 52.3 percent of eligible (that is, citizen, adult non-felons) Oregonians voted, according to figures from the United States Election Project at George Mason University. In California, the percentage was 44.3 percent. Turnout is higher in presidential years. In 2008, for example, 67.5 percent of eligible Oregonians and 61 percent of eligible Californians cast ballots. Academic studies have found that the opportunity to vote on initiatives and referendums encourages turnout. The most recent academic work, however, suggests that this turnout effect is driven less by interest in a specific issue than by strong campaigns by political parties.