Double yes with a key question
In Switzerland, the double yes with a key question is the possibility of approving both proposals in votes on popular initiatives with a counter-draft and in a key question to specify which one should be implemented if both are accepted. It was introduced at the federal level in 1987. Most of the cantons without a rural community already knew the possibility earlier, others such as Thurgau and Freiburg introduced it afterwards, the cantons of Nidwalden , Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Obwalden when the rural community was abolished. Various municipalities also allow the double yes with a key question.
Reasons for the introduction
The electorate, who wanted a change in any case, could not express this will before the introduction of the double yes, because he was only allowed to say yes to one proposal and had to insert blankly for the other. Ballot papers that said yes to both submissions were invalid.
The empty votes, however, worked like a no, because they increased the absolute majority. It therefore happened several times that both the initiative and the counter-draft were rejected, although only a minority of all those who voted was against an innovation. For example, in the vote of September 28, 1986 on the Federal Cultural Initiative and the counter-draft, the votes of almost 300,000 voters could not be counted in the way they would have wanted. Around 10,000 double yeses had to be declared invalid, and 289,000 empty votes increased the absolute majority so that the counter-draft did not reach it and was therefore rejected along with the initiative.
The existing rules thus favored those who wanted to adhere to the current law over those who wanted a change.
Again and again the accusation was raised that the (hopeless) counter-proposal was only being worked out in order to bring down an initiative thanks to the prohibition of the double yes.
Previous applications at federal level
In the referendum of April 5, 1987, the double yes with a key question was clearly accepted by a majority of 63.3% of the electorate and with 21: 2 professional votes.
A double yes with a key question was possible in three votes on federal popular initiatives so far (as of mid-2017):
- 2000: Federal popular initiative "for a solar penny (solar initiative)"
- 2002: Federal popular initiative "Excess gold reserves in the AHV fund (gold initiative)"
- 2010: Federal popular initiative "For the deportation of criminal foreigners (deportation initiative)"
In none of the cases were both the initiative and the counter-draft accepted, so the key question was meaningless in each case.
Effect of the key question at federal level
When the double yes with key question was introduced in 1987, it was stipulated that in the event of a double yes, both proposals, if they had to overcome the double hurdle of the popular and cantonal majority (in popular initiatives and mandatory referendums ), were considered rejected if the result of the key question was People and classes turned out differently. This regulation was soon found to be unsatisfactory.
A parliamentary initiative submitted by National Councilor Ruedi Aeschbacher at the end of 2000 therefore demanded that only the people's majority should be decisive for the key question. However, Aeschbacher withdrew the initiative in view of the referendum on the change of the people's rights of 2003. In this Parliament chose the solution that template that will come into force, "in which the percentage of people votes and the percentage of the number of votes from the larger sum result" (Article 139. B para. 3 of the Constitution).
In the referendum of February 9, 2003, the "Amendment of the people's rights", which in addition to the "percentage rule" also included the introduction of the general popular initiative that was canceled again in 2009 and other modifications, was approved by a majority of 70.4% of the electorate and with 23: 0 professional votes clearly accepted.
It is criticized that with the percentage rule on a key question, the professional votes are weighted higher than the popular votes.
The problem does not arise in cantons and municipalities, as there are no double hurdles. Thuringia withdrew a motion by District Administrator Georges Thuringia ( SVP ) to introduce a district majority in the canton of Basel-Landschaft in view of the vote on the reunification of Basel-Stadt and Basel-Landschaft , because a district majority against Art. 51, Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Federal Constitution would be violated.
Percentage of yes and no votes
When voting on a proposal without a counter-proposal, the total of yes and no votes always corresponds to the number of valid ballot papers, since empty ballot papers are not considered by law. The determination of the percentage of yes and no votes is therefore clear.
In the case of votes with a counter-draft, however, the number of valid ballot papers is always higher than the total of yes and no votes, since ballot papers are also valid that leave the question on one of the templates blank, but the others answer (or just answer the key question ), which means that if the template is left blank, a valid ballot is obtained, but no yes or no vote. When determining the percentage of yes and no votes, the results are different, depending on whether you start from the number of valid ballots or the total of yes and no votes (e.g. percentage of yes votes in the deportation initiative from 2010: 52.3 or 52.9%). The Federal Chancellery determines the percentage of the number of valid ballot papers in two overviews, but of the total of yes and no votes in the canton overview. The percentages of the total of yes and no votes are officially valid.
Individual evidence
- ^ Adrian Vatter: Cantonal democracies in comparison. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2002, ISBN 978-3-8100-3431-1 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
- ↑ Federal Decree of December 20, 1985 on the "Federal Cultural Initiative". In: Website of the Federal Chancellery.
- ↑ a b Referendum of April 5, 1987. Explanations of the Federal Council. ( Memento of the original from February 8, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Federal Chancellery website (PDF; 482 MB).
- ↑ Popular vote of April 5, 1987. Federal resolution of December 19, 1986 on the voting procedure for popular initiatives with a counter-draft. In: Website of the Federal Chancellery.
- ↑ Key question if the answer is yes twice. People more than the sole criterion. In: Website of the Swiss Federal Assembly.
- ↑ Referendum of February 9, 2003. Explanations of the Federal Council. ( Memento of the original from February 8, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Federal Chancellery website (PDF; 236 kB).
- ↑ Referendum of February 9, 2003. Federal decree on amending people's rights. In: Website of the Federal Chancellery.
- ↑ Jan Flückiger: The doubly wrong argument. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . January 21, 2016.
- ^ David Thommen: Initiative for district more announced. In: Basler Zeitung . September 8, 2012.
- ↑ Art. 51 of the Swiss Federal Constitution.
- ↑ Federal Law on Political Rights Art. 13 . In: Federal Administration website.
- ↑ z. B. Deportation initiative 2010: referendum of November 28, 2010 and referendum of November 28, 2010. Template No. 552. Overview. In: Federal Administration website.
- ↑ z. B. Deportation initiative 2010: referendum on November 28, 2010. Overview. Template No. 552. Results in the cantons. In: Federal Administration website.
