Nearly 55% of voters in Switzerland on Sunday rejected an initiative championed by the top right-wing party to cap the rich Alpine country’s population at 10 million, early results showed.
The populist Swiss People’s Party, which has the most seats in parliament, has stirred up and fostered anti-migration sentiment over the years, notably about an influx of workers from the neighboring European Union.
Some have dubbed the proposal a “Swiss Brexit” because it could jeopardize Switzerland’s deep ties to the European Union anchored by deals that foster economic growth, cultural ties and cross-border travel, among other things. Switzerland is not one of the EU’s 27 member states, but it is all but surrounded by four of them
Aww yep, good to hear only 45% support ‘capping’ the people they don’t like, phew.
It’s so fucking embarrassing to be a human being and watch dumb shit like this and authoritarianism growing around the world.
So many countries started because of this kind of shit I’ve human history, but we’re all outta globe to pack our shit and start a proper country with blackjack and hookers…🫤
somehow you left this comment five times
Holy shit…appreciate the heads up! Its funny too, the top one is the only one with the spelling correction edit. No idea what happened but thanks for pointing it out!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My thoughts exactly. Everyone is like “the Swiss have spoken and are clearly not supporting capping the population”. And I feel like that is not really showing the reality…
I have no particular skin in this game, but reading the article:
- Results are still pending
- Turnout of 59% > 55% of 59% is actually 32%
Come on folks 👀
Depends entirely on how the voting results are coming in. It’s entirely reasonable to call a result if the sample of votes counted already is a representative sample of the whole.
A counter example would be the recent elections in California. The early results came in from rural red areas for the governors race. So the early results were heavily weighed to the voting trends of those counties rather than the much different high density urban counties.
Also. Article mentions 55% of voters. It never said 55% of the total population. It just also stated independently a 59% total turnout. They wrote it perfectly fine.
Actual results map for anyone interested.
https://abstimmungen.admin.ch/en/details?proposalId=6860
TLDR: There is nothing wrong with the way the article shared percentages or inferring results from a partial count.
I know this isn’t how it would work but im just picturing some one woman giving birth, the doctor hands her the newborn and she holds it for the first time… Some man walks in wearing a black suit and pulls out a gun. He shoots the baby through the head. “sorry that was the 10 million and 1 Swiss child, we have a limit!”
This initiative was a conservative movement.
It would have been used as a cudgel to oppress immigrants or to target the out group.
Yeah, I understood that. But a hard limit on population is crazy. You would need to have some way of killing people for each person born. That’s disregarding the fact that people have a beneficial use. They can help in food, service, manufacturing, business to business stuff.
But taken to the extreme if some person in a suit just going around the country killing people for each person born…
I don’t know how many hospitals are in Switzerland or how big they are but it’s definitely more than 10 a day so imagine someone just driving around all day yelling at traffic and any delay because they need to report how many people they killed that week and praying it’s not a busy week in the maternity ward…
And when they run out of immigrants: Rules is rules
Clearly it would be more humane to take out the oldest Swiss person instead of the youngest
Nah the nation-wide vote is the most moral approach. The list of candidates is selected from trending posts on social media, then the whole nation decides whom to kill in a democratic way.
Much better idea: kill the richest person and distribute their wealth evenly amongst the rest of the population, public infrastructure, and social programs
Repeat until there’s no billionaires, no poverty, and nobody has to go without anything essential for living in a modern society.
That could be worse…watching tv on the couch with your spouse, you both laugh at the joke suddenly the door opens and your partners head splatters everywhere. The man in a black suit says “sorry, the tompsons just had a baby”…
Statistically it’s more common for the oldest person to be a widow(er)
But if the Swiss population started to get out of control maybe
Probably true but not as funny to picture…
44% to little
What does the article mean when it says switzerland is “all but surrounded by four of them”?
It means Switzerland is all but surrounded by four EU member states. Germany, Italy, France, and Austria.
The point being every country around them is in the EU and Switzerland is a notable enclave when you look at a map.
Liechtenstein: “Am I a joke to you?”
If you’ve been to Lichtenstein, you know the answer is yes. We have villages that are bigger. And the architecture there is eclectic.
“All but” has always confused me as a phrase even as a native English speaker. You would think it means it isn’t surrounded at all, i.e. “all but:” = “the last thing it would be is:”, but apparently not.
It’s the worst phrase and we need to stop using it! Most of the time the actual intended meaning can be found by just removing “all but”. Switzerland is all but surrounded == Switzerland is surrounded
It’s made worse by the fact that my native language has exactly the same phrase in terms of literal meanings of words… So naturally the meaning is the exact opposite of what it is in English.
No, it means it’s almost surrounded. Lichtenstein is not part of the EU.
Which is the point of the phrase of course. It’s meant to simultaneously acknowledge and dismiss the “well ackshully” crowd. No, Switzerland is not fully surrounded, but also it doesn’t matter in any politically meaningful way.
It’s all but the worst phrase and we need to all but stop using it! All but most of the time the actual all but intended meaning can all but be found by just all but removing “all but”. Switzerland is all but all all but but surrounded == Switzerland is all but surrounded
It’s the worst phrase
It’s not even in the top 1000 worst phrases
gosh, it’s almost as if Switzerland is part of Europe!
Switzerland should simply allow migrants with needed skills. This would automatically control migration and the population since it’s difficult to believe that Swiss have no skills.
I might be wrong here but AFAIK they have a deal with EU that makes them join the four freedoms, which makes them not able to control who gets in and who not as long as the immigrants are from EU.
You might be correct, but the EU is restricting immigration because some of its members such as Germany are facing pressure from far-right groups to control immigration.
