(Type a title for your page here)

Table 20.2
How "The People" Are Heard -- Direct versus Representative Democracy

Type of popular consultation Swiss "direct democracy"
U.S.-European "representative democracy"

Federal or state (cantonal) elections -- frequency

3-4 times a year in a typical canton -- and more frequent "feedback" through referenda

1 time a year or less, on average -- no other formal, systematic feedback

Direct votes on policy -- approve or defeat acts of elites

Frequent: 2-3 times a year for national or cantonal policies

Infrequent; less than once a year; only in certain states; and none on federal policy.

Given the above, the nature of most campaigns for office or legislation, and of campaign spending is...

An ongoing, continuous effort to persuade voters -- low key, and much of it coming through the press. Nearly all focused on the public, and on the public as an end in itself. Substantial fear of lost credibility or seeming shrillness, since any temporary victory in elite institutions can be overturned, and long-term losses of credibility with the public may cause immediate losses.

Short, concentrated bursts of highly emotional attempts to get the public's attention for a key vote -- electing a president or representative -- the results of which will then be permanent for 2,4, or 6 years. Much focus on elites, much on public -- but that focused on the public is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. The game is to sway legislators by raising their fear of the public.

Initiate legislation

Citizen can do so directly (initiative) or through his representatives

Citizen can only do so through his elected officials

How does a citizen's vote make itself felt on the national laws?

In large clumps, by voting on representatives, but also in small, focused decisions on dozens of policy questions (through referendum)

Only in large clumps -- citizen can only make his voice felt by voting for officials who have taken dozens or hundreds of positions.

Official blocking a piece of legislation can be circumvented by...

Initiative, referendum, and the influence that the threat of these works on all elected officials.

Only by throwing the official out in a multi-issue election several years hence, or swaying a vast number of elites (such as two-thirds of the Senate) to act.

Lawmaking body or committee that can avoid a vote on a subject has killed it?

No -- see above.

Yes, in the
overwhelming majority of cases.

Given the above, lobbyist who spends a fortune influencing a bill through Congress and the White House, or preventing it, has won -- his money is well spent.

His money may be well spent, but may not be. Especially if the measure is significantly contrary to the public interest, he now faces having all his work overturned in a referendum challenge.

The lobbyist has spent his or her money well. The new law is law (or not law), assuming it is not overturned by another elite body, such as a federal court. The public has no direct recourse -- angry citizens must try to make enough noise to convince lawmakers to overturn the decision.

Type of popular consultation	Swiss "direct democracy"	U.S.-European "representative democracy"
Federal or state (cantonal) elections -- frequency	3-4 times a year in a typical canton -- and more frequent "feedback" through referenda	1 time a year or less, on average -- no other formal, systematic feedback
Direct votes on policy -- approve or defeat acts of elites	Frequent: 2-3 times a year for national or cantonal policies	Infrequent; less than once a year; only in certain states; and none on federal policy.
Given the above, the nature of most campaigns for office or legislation, and of campaign spending is...	An ongoing, continuous effort to persuade voters -- low key, and much of it coming through the press. Nearly all focused on the public, and on the public as an end in itself. Substantial fear of lost credibility or seeming shrillness, since any temporary victory in elite institutions can be overturned, and long-term losses of credibility with the public may cause immediate losses.	Short, concentrated bursts of highly emotional attempts to get the public's attention for a key vote -- electing a president or representative -- the results of which will then be permanent for 2,4, or 6 years. Much focus on elites, much on public -- but that focused on the public is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. The game is to sway legislators by raising their fear of the public.
Initiate legislation	Citizen can do so directly (initiative) or through his representatives	Citizen can only do so through his elected officials
How does a citizen's vote make itself felt on the national laws?	In large clumps, by voting on representatives, but also in small, focused decisions on dozens of policy questions (through referendum)	Only in large clumps -- citizen can only make his voice felt by voting for officials who have taken dozens or hundreds of positions.
Official blocking a piece of legislation can be circumvented by...	Initiative, referendum, and the influence that the threat of these works on all elected officials.	Only by throwing the official out in a multi-issue election several years hence, or swaying a vast number of elites (such as two-thirds of the Senate) to act.
Lawmaking body or committee that can avoid a vote on a subject has killed it?	No -- see above.	Yes, in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Given the above, lobbyist who spends a fortune influencing a bill through Congress and the White House, or preventing it, has won -- his money is well spent.	His money may be well spent, but may not be. Especially if the measure is significantly contrary to the public interest, he now faces having all his work overturned in a referendum challenge.	The lobbyist has spent his or her money well. The new law is law (or not law), assuming it is not overturned by another elite body, such as a federal court. The public has no direct recourse -- angry citizens must try to make enough noise to convince lawmakers to overturn the decision.