> The first federal vote in which women were able to participate was the 31 October 1971 election of the Federal Assembly. However it was not until a 1990 decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland that women gained full voting rights in the final Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden.
It's not working extremely well. It's also quite slow which is quite the opposite of what's needed now.
Honestly that's like citing the Scopes Monkey Trial to discredit the US on science as a whole.
Appenzell Innerrhoden is a tiny half-canton, 67 sq.mi, population ~16,000 or 0.2% of Switzerland (8.8m). Dayton, Tennessee (of Scopes Monkey Trial infamy) has a population of 7,000.
Women in Switzerland obtained the right to vote at federal level in 1971, and at local cantonal level between 1959 and 1972 [0][1], except for Appenzell.
I don't think you can know that. For example, I could say culture brings economy and system. If you have a culture of hard work and merit then you will generate a high economy, and whether you have representative or direct democracy you will steer certain ways.
One I think clearer example is a direct democracy can choose to ignore minorities (of any stripe) more, and have more to spend on visible things that help most people, but also allow smaller groups to fall away (or not allow them in at all). I don't know if that's the case for Switzerland, as with wealth comes the ability to mitigate this, but that is the traditional danger with direct democracy.
So basically, it is not a terrible idea like you said, but something that will work(and in my opinion, extremely well) in a highly developed society? And considering how well they are thriving, obviously it is not detrimental at all?
None of your concerns have happened in Switzerland, quite the opposite.
I don’t know what you mean by minorities, but in Zürich a third of the population aren’t even Swiss citizens. In Switzerland, everything is extremely decentralized.
Additionally, Switzerland is not a homogeneous culture - the differences between Vaud, Zürich, Ticino etc. are massive.
All I know is Switzerland is a wonderful place, and I believe it is because they never really had a king, but ruled their country together.
> something that will work(and in my opinion, extremely well) in a highly developed society
I don't see the point in changing what I said. I said I think most systems can look good if there's enough money sloshing around.
My point is - e.g. in the US, who also never had a king, most people live in cities. If there were direct democracy then those people could vote for very pro-city policies, and neglect rural. Given there's representational democracy, that's much more difficult, and national rules need to be more balanced.
It's not working extremely well. It's also quite slow which is quite the opposite of what's needed now.