Cantonal referendum "Reintroduction of the rural community in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden"
| Cantonal referendum | |
|---|---|
| "Reintroduction of the rural community in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden" | |
| Result: | Declined |
| General | |
| Canton: | Appenzell Ausserrhoden |
| Date: | June 13, 2010 |
| Recommendation of the Cantonal Council | |
| Yes: | 4th |
| No: | 58 |
| result | |
| Yes: | 4845 (29.71%) |
| No: | 11,461 (70.29%) |
| Yes votes by community | |
|
|
The cantonal referendum on “Reintroduction of the rural community in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden” was a referendum in the Swiss canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden that took place on June 13, 2010. The content of the template was the reintroduction of the Landsgemeinde , which was abolished in 1997.
Background and content
For a long time, the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden was one of the few eight cantons that carried out votes in the form of a rural municipality. After the voting procedure was criticized, especially in the case of tight decisions, the people decided on September 28, 1997 in a ballot box to abolish the Landsgemeinde and from then on only vote at the ballot box or by letter. Ten years later, however, an initiative committee was formed, which on December 14, 2007 submitted an initiative to the cantonal chancellery to reintroduce the rural community and the list of signatures. The initiative text read as follows:
The Landsgemeinde as an assembly of cantonal voters and the highest constitutional and legislative body is to be reintroduced.
Since the Cantonal Council rejected the initiative on February 22nd, 2010 with 58 to 4 votes, the legally stipulated popular vote took place.
Reasoning of supporters and opponents
The initiators justified the reintroduction of the Landsgemeinde with the fact that:
- the Landsgemeinde means tradition and political culture for the canton, which characterize the canton and distinguish it from most other cantons.
- the democracy in a rural community is perceived more intensely, since both the people and the government are visible to everyone.
- The cohesion is promoted by the rural community, since the voters of all communities come together in one place and take part in the event together.
- since the abolition of the Landsgemeinde there has been a shift in political weight. Instead of direct democracy by the people, since then there has only been representative democracy by delegates. Political processes have since taken place between the cantonal council and the government.
- if the Landsgemeinde is newly introduced, there is a chance of an improvement over the one that was abolished at that time. For example, the possibility of offering public transport for free or day-care centers on the day of the Landsgemeinde was mentioned. Even the possibility of supporting the counting process (the so-called 'Mehren') with electronic aids was mentioned.
Furthermore, it was openly admitted that the Landsgemeinde was a beautiful “celebration of democracy” that one simply wished for.
The Cantonal Council also recognized the traditional and cultural importance of the former rural community, but saw advantages in the ballot box and letter voting, which were predominant and preferable overall:
- With the reintroduction of the Landsgemeinde, the advantages of a place- and time-independent coordination would be lost, since a postal vote would no longer be possible.
- As a result, the voter participation would inevitably decrease, for example, by voters who are unable to participate on the day of the Landsgemeinde.
- The reintroduction of the Landsgemeinde contradicts the trend of the other cantons towards e-voting and one would block the connection to it for years.
- Legislative processes would be hindered, since at least in the past the Landsgemeinde were only held once a year, but since the new cantonal constitution of 1995, shorter times are sometimes required.
- With the reintroduction of the Landsgemeinde, requirements of federal and international law must be met that did not previously apply. Among other things, the control of the participants and an increased guarantee of security
It was also criticized that the initiative only included the reintroduction of the Landsgemeinde, but did not comment in any way on the constitution or legislation. If accepted, the cantonal and government councils would be left alone with the implementation, which could lead to different ideas about a new rural community towards the initiators and voters. In addition, the Cantonal Council made it clear that a combination of the previous vote at the ballot box and by letter together with a rural community is excluded.
Voting result
All 20 municipalities in the canton rejected the proposal. The proportion of yes-votes was between 21% in the Schwellbrunn community and 44% in the Wald community . On average in the cantons, the proposal was rejected with a negative proportion of 70.3%.
| district | Yes (number) | No (number) | Yes (percent) | No (percent) | adoption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buhler | 118 | 314 | 27.3% | 72.7% | No |
| Gais | 272 | 774 | 26.0% | 74.0% | No |
| Grub | 105 | 214 | 32.9% | 67.1% | No |
| Heathens | 240 | 750 | 24.2% | 75.8% | No |
| Herisau | 1,098 | 3'003 | 26.8% | 73.2% | No |
| Hundwil | 130 | 239 | 35.2% | 64.8% | No |
| Lutzenberg | 115 | 173 | 39.9% | 60.1% | No |
| Rehetobel | 203 | 413 | 33.0% | 67.0% | No |
| Tail | 50 | 166 | 23.1% | 76.9% | No |
| Schönengrund | 37 | 120 | 23.6% | 76.4% | No |
| Schwellbrunn | 102 | 382 | 21.1% | 78.9% | No |
| Storage | 451 | 1,018 | 30.7% | 69.3% | No |
| stone | 130 | 457 | 22.1% | 77.9% | No |
| Depth | 760 | 1,326 | 36.4% | 63.6% | No |
| Trogen | 280 | 403 | 41.0% | 59.0% | No |
| Urnaesch | 174 | 525 | 24.9% | 75.1% | No |
| Forest | 111 | 140 | 44.2% | 55.8% | No |
| Waldstatt | 173 | 433 | 28.5% | 71.5% | No |
| Walzenhausen | 153 | 318 | 32.5% | 67.5% | No |
| Wolf heaps | 143 | 293 | 32.8% | 67.2% | No |
| Total (20) | 4,845 | 11'461 | 29.7% | 70.3% | No |