Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on May 23, 2010 at 2:27pm

COLIN
Switzerland
In Switzerland, there are binding referendums at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. It is not the government's choice whether or when a referendum is held, but it is a legal procedure regulated by the Swiss constitution. There are two types of referendums:

Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an international organization, or that change Swiss law may be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. Within cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most common type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are proposed by the parliament or by the cantons or by citizens' initiatives. Citizen's initiatives at the federal level need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.
The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law.

The referendums are said, by their adversaries, to slow politics down. On the other hand, empirical scientists, e.g. Bruno S. Frey among many, show that this and other instruments of citizens' participation, direct democracy, contribute to stability and happiness.

The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Referendums are also often combined with elections. The percentage of voters is around 40% to 50%, unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on May 23, 2010 at 2:31pm

TRY THIS
See more @
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

Minaret controversy in Switzerland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to:navigation, search

The Ahmadiyya mosque in ZürichThe Minaret controversy in Switzerland refers to construction of minarets, which has been subject to legal and political controversy in Switzerland during the 2000s.

In a November 2009 referendum, a constitutional amendment banning the construction of new minarets was approved by 57.5% of the participating voters.[1] Only four of the 26 Swiss cantons,[2] mostly in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, opposed the initiative.

This referendum originates from action on 1 May 2007, when a group of right of centre politicians mainly from the Swiss People's Party and the Federal Democratic Union, the Egerkinger Kommittee ("Egerkingen Committee") launched a federal popular initiative that sought a constitutional ban on minarets. The Swiss government recommended that the proposed amendment be rejected as inconsistent with basic principles of the constitution.[3]

As of the date of the 2009 vote, there were four minarets in Switzerland, attached to mosques in Zürich, Geneva, Winterthur and Wangen bei Olten. These existing minarets are not affected by the ban.

Doug Harrison

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by June Beckett on May 23, 2010 at 4:47pm

Thank you, Doug, for a very interesting post. I haven't been able to read all the Wikipedia entry yet but will do so. The main point is, though, that the people have a very important say in what goes on in their country. Oh, that we had the same here!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on May 29, 2010 at 3:29pm

to all :
The primal voters roll for the Commonwealth of Australia is held by the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City USA! What is released prior to a federal election by the AEC as the source roll is not this primal roll, but some secondary or later source of voter information.
All these later day voter enrollments are added to this AEC source, and then deleted immediately post election. The primal source will thus be totally unaware of these new enrollments, whether they be legitimate or 'cementary' type voters.
What legitimate new enrollments remain will at some time be transferred to the primal source by the AEC. But vote rigging will have been achieved without ever being tracable.
Any computer hack can achieve such an outcome.
The ALP, and Coalition Party hacks openly laugh about this ability. Each Party takes heed of the very close electorates winnable with a small swing of votes, and then goes about rigging or altering the result. A small swing of seats could alter the election result.
Doug Harrison

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by June Beckett on May 29, 2010 at 4:47pm

Interesting, Doug, but where do you get your information from? Please supply references.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on May 29, 2010 at 9:08pm

June,

not sure I can help with references. I remember from first hand discussion in central Melbourne many years ago at which Dr Amy McGrath and others spoke in jocular terms of vote rigging; this included ALP and Liberal Party hacks. Its a huge game to them.
Amy's husband was attending a Sir Samuel Griffith Society meeting in the same building.
You get a feeling these power moguls are just playing with the vote system and our votes.
I note that after the 2007 election some 120,000 'new' enrolments appeared other than true new enrolments and change of address. This info is from the AEC as quoted in an address by a Senator. There is no explanation of these extra votes.
These extra votes, actually a swing of 240,000 votes, could have changed more than 20 seats across the nation. Of cause it is not a uniform swing to ALP or Coalition, but.............
We have a manipulated system.
Also some 1.4m eligible people are not registered as of the 2007 election and has risen since. This is some 10% of eligible Australians refuse to enrol for various reasons.

Doug Harrison

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Smith on November 9, 2011 at 1:00pm

Beverley, My wife worked for an organisation, based in North Sydney around the mid nineties called Centre 2000, this was a main advocator for CIR. The late Ben Lexon was one of its sponsors. I am sure that a similar organisation if not active, may exist today.

I am still not 100% convinced that the coalition will repeal the carbon tax, I feel that we may be appeased with all sorts of sweetners to keep the money rolling in. I am from UK many moons ago and voting is not compulsory, it should be that way here, ie true democracy and if you dont like what you get its tough if you cannot be bothered to vote.  People have a choice.
Beverley Prescott said:

Peter,

Janet - from another discussion - remembered  that we had had a discussion on CIR some time back and we found it to put it forward for comment again.

Sorry to confuse the issue.  

Bev

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on November 9, 2011 at 1:40pm

I feel thaT if mandatory voting was removed,the greens would dominate the government regularly. Remember Getup and the other groups like them,if we didn't vote they'd have a field day. I feel that every green group would dominate the polls in that enviroment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on November 9, 2011 at 6:35pm

I feel given the current situation,that we would not have trouble getting the support of Australians to change the Constitution in this manner,if we could get it through parliament as this is where all the previous attempts to change it have been defeated(to my knowledge).

Peter Heuscher said:

Hi Alan,
With all due respect - I don't care who is in goverment if I can control it (with the instruments of "direct democracy").And may be it is difficult to change the Constitution - but nevertheless - do we have a chance
if we don't do it ?

 

 

alan mikkelsen said:

Peter and Michel, international analyses have always shown that Compulsory Voting, a la in Oz, always favours the Left of politics. As does Preferential Voting. Crikey!!  Could that be why Labor and the Greens, plus some Independents, just love our system? Two - time winners??

I certainly don't oppose the democratic principles as have now been debated here for well over a year, with some names dropping out and nw ones coming in, but it is a big ask to change the Constitution. Getting a large political concensus is essential, and obviously very, very complex.

Cheers  bro' al

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page