Hacker News Reader

Comment by chongli | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't the fact that the margin on the no vote was so high put a damper on the enthusiasm for supporters? Or do the Swiss routinely vote over and over again on rewordings of the same idea?

View on HN

It does put a damper on things, but yeah, it's not uncommon for more or less the same thing to come up every decade or two. Evergreen topics include immigration reform, nuclear power, and whether Switzerland needs an army.

Ahhh. Well, it will be interesting to see how the economy evolves over the next decade and how that might affect a future vote. If tons of Swiss middle class lose their jobs and move down to low class it could be a dramatic reversal.

Mandatory health insurance is another good example:[1]

In 1890 the constitution was changed by popular vote to give the federal government the authority and duty to establish a health care system, either voluntary or mandatory.

A project for mandatory accident and health insurance passed the parliament in 1899, but a referendum was requested and the proposed law was rejected by popular vote in 1900.

A new law was passed in 1911, keeping the mandatory accident insurance but leaving the states free to make health insurance voluntary or mandatory. This law survived a referendum in 1912.

Attempts at revising the health insurance law failed in the 20's, 40's and 50's.

A popular initiative for mandatory health insurance failed the vote in 1974. A counter-project submitted by the government, with mandatory coverage for large risks only, also failed the vote.

Finally, another popular initiative for mandatory health insurance is deposited in 1986. The government prepares an indirect counter-project, resulting in a law that includes mandatory health insurance. The law is adopted by the parliament in March 1994, but a referendum is requested. Both the initiative and the referendum on the law are submitted to a popular vote in December 1994. The initiative fails by 76.6% "no" while the counter-project passes by 51.8% "yes".

[1] http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D16608.php

No because you have to look at were we came from. 10 years ago people either didn't know what it even was or was against the idea. Only small groups of people here and there even thought it as a potential solution.

Now countries like Finland is looking into it.

I am pretty confident we are going to end up there, but like many other major changes in society it takes time and thats fine.

Well, it was 2500 bucks.

Maybe 1500 would get more people to vote for it, or something else chagned, etc.

Thing is that Switzerland is a super-expensive country. 1500 would not actually be enough to live on. You can get 4000 working at the till at a supermarket.

The idea of basic income is not to replace jobs. The idea is to give you the basics of living and food. Then you can take on additional work of some kind to improve your overall income.

You could live with 1500 if you really wanted to. Its not impossible.

If you do not need any housing (or maybe am ok with a very remote small room)

It wasn't 2500 bucks. The text Switzerland voted on today said something like:

> 1. The Confederation has to implement a basic income.

> 2. This basic income has to be sufficient to live in dignity and participate to public life.

> 3. The basic income amount and financing are regulated by law.

Nothing regarding the exact amount. Swiss people were asked to vote on an idea, not on a specific amount.

Which is exactly what made me turn against it. I want to know what I vote for, leaving it open like that will in the best case lead to a completely watered down compromise and in the worst case a complete mess. The social security system needs to get simplified at the same time. An initiative committee for UBI needs to sit down and come up with a tenable solution, at least for the basic parameters (both spending and financing).

It's exactly how it should be! We generally, like in this case, vote for a change of the constitution. The constitution should not contain specific monetary values like this that need to be regularly adapted anyway, nor would it make sense for people to vote on specific values. We should vote on general ideas and the government, together with specialists, impels implements them. Otherwise it's some kind of micromanagement by the masses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com