Last November, the people clearly accepted two bills and rejected the drawing of lots for the election of federal judges. In a follow-up survey, the research institute GfS Bern shows how the opinions were formed.
Mass advertising remains ineffective: in November 2021, the people clearly supported the Covid-19 law, despite the opponents’ expensive and omnipresent campaign.
The pandemic dominates our everyday life and also politics. This can also be seen in the example of the referendums of the past year. “Since the introduction of women’s suffrage in 1971, the average turnout has never been higher than in 2021,” writes the GfS Bern research institute in its latest Vox analysis. On behalf of the Federal Chancellery, it conducts a representative survey of randomly selected voters after every referendum. The institute looks for motives for or against taking part in the votes and for explanations for the decisions made.
Most important proposal of the last two legislatures
It was an emotionally driven campaign for last November 28th. Therefore, the high turnout was by no means surprising. After June 2021, the Covid-19 law was up for debate for the second time in a few months and attracted 65.7 percent of those eligible to the ballot box. This was the fourth-highest turnout on a single voting Sunday since 1971.
The GfS Bern estimates in the Vox analysis that the referendum on the Covid 19 law had more weight than any other proposal for a long time. “The mean ascribed importance on a scale from 0 to 10 only reached 7.0 in the first referendum vote, now the meaning in the second vote rose to 8.8, clearly the highest mean value of the last two legislatures,” writes the GfS Bern in the final report.
In the follow-up survey of 3,420 voters, the research institute came to the conclusion that the pro and con camps had become increasingly polarized compared to the first referendum in June. SVP sympathizers voted more clearly against the Covid 19 law, GLP and FDP-related voters and supporters of other parties would have voted more clearly yes.
At 62 percent, the yes share even rose by two percentage points compared to June. “From young to old and from left to right – hardly any group voted no by majority,” writes the research team around the political and media scientist Lukas Golder from the GfS. The exception would have been the unvaccinated, SVP sympathizers and those who would have trusted the opponents of the measures or the “friends of the constitution”.
The study also provides insight into the sources of information for voters, which is particularly revealing in the case of the Covid 19 law and cements previous impressions of the pandemic era. The opponents of the corona measures, who are critical of the government and the media, found out less about editorial sources and were more influenced by street posters, online comments or social media than those who voted yes.
With the Covid-19 law, the Covid certificate was also up for debate. The opponents had feared a two-class society. The study recognizes that vaccinated people clearly voted for the benefit of the certificate. GfS Bern analyzes that the population clearly spoke out in favor of the law, indicating a high level of trust in the Federal Council.
Left-green for strong maintenance
The pandemic also had an impact on the second submission from last November. The Strong Nursing initiative aimed to empower healthcare workers. The Corona crisis has revealed grievances in these professions and has also driven many nurses from their jobs due to overwork and burnout. The proposal was well received and was accepted as the first initiative with a trade union character. The Vox analysis shows that the clear yes was due to “strong support from voters from the left-green camp and the political center”.
In the follow-up survey, those who voted yes gave their appreciation for the work of nurses during the pandemic as the most important motive. In the No camp there were mainly FDP and SVP supporters. They had spoken out against state interference and against a special position for care in the constitution.
Not letting faith decide over anything
The third initiative was launched independently of the pandemic. The justice initiative would have abolished the election of federal judges and replaced it with a lottery system. This project did not find a majority even among those on the left, and the people rejected it. The center and right-wing parties clearly rejected the idea. Opponents of the proposal felt that the lottery procedure was more of a gamble and had nothing to do with the competences of the judges. In addition, the previous system was perceived as good.
The supporters of the initiative wanted to get involved in non-partisan judges and would have considered this system to be fairer. “All in all, the lottery process was not convincing,” the analysts conclude.