To be clear: I love direct democracy, it’s one of the primary reasons I repatriated to this wonderful country.
That said, I really don’t think the general public is capable of making informed decisions on such complex economic topics.
Anecdote 1: 13th pillar. Ideologically most of us youngsters were against this in the first place, but then whoops, it’s actually going to put us in the red starting in 2026. Do we need to do another votation to reverse it now?
Anecdote 2: 2nd pillar reform this weekend. I have a degree in an economics adjacent field, myself and several colleagues have tried our hardest to research this topic, yet we can’t come to a conclusion at all. On the one hand, PS/SP makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that we don’t need to reduce payments despite extending lifespans, and the only people who will profit are banks off our reduced payments FR/OF. On the other hand, UDC/SVP says the funds are fucked without a 4.5% annual return (again, no working given at all) and we’ve got to do it FR/OF. As much as the other merits (reduced lower bound for insured salary, consolidated across jobs, easier for older people to find work) appeal, I can’t in good conscience vote for those if it means the 2nd pillar system falls apart or bankers profit off our losses. The official voting booklet didn’t provide much more information for me either.
In addition to the CMV, if you can provide me decision making evidence for this weekend please do.
Change my view: we shouldn't be conducting votations about pension reform
byu/CeedyRower inSwitzerland
Posted by CeedyRower
6 Comments
You‘re wrong. If you don‘t see how the general public gets fucked you should not be able to vote.
/thread
Direct democracy sounds amazing on paper. But in the end it‘s just a dictatorship of the stupid and/or old.
Another one using the term direct democracy
This is an argument Germans like to give why they think semi-direct democracy is ‘bad’. They say that politicians know what’s better for the country because lots of voters are stupid. But it seems like no one can agree on what the outcome will be as you have clearly demonstrated. So I don’t see why we should leave it up to politicians.
As far as direct democracy goes, you cannot exclude any one topic. As soon as you do, you loose the direct democracy.
Churchill famously said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
And I don’t know who said this: “The best argument against Democracy is a *five-minute conversation with the average voter*.”
You’re asking for another violation to reverse it.
And honestly, kinda yeah.
It’s semi-direct democracy, and while I’m aware the general public cannot always make informed decisions, we kinda have to accept these drawbacks.
If we wouldn’t be able to do pension reform, we wouldn’t be able to do other things either.
It’s…
I’ll just say that it’s a bit of a modern trend for things to go quickly back and forth, and regardless, we’ll figure out the consequences of our actions sooner or later.
I still think we should be able to do such reforms, even if it means we mess up for some of them. Because there will be messy stuff either way, after all we’re humans and can’t please everyone either.