The Sum of Minorities – The Counter

The recent plebiscite of September 4 seemed a defeat as resounding as it was unappealable. Since then, various analytical exercises have been generated in search of identifying their causes, assigning responsibilities of variable weight to different internal and external factors. Undoubtedly, this task is not only legitimate, but necessary. However, and apart from the reasonable determination of “culpability”, a structural element continues to go basically unnoticed: that the plebiscite was made “with the dice loaded against” and was (in practice), “not winnable”.
Let me explain.
In the frequent referendums that are held in Switzerland at both the national and subnational levels, for example, the issues submitted to citizenship are eminently limited, and can be resolved with a simple “yes” or a “no”. The resulting majorities and minorities are clear, final and relevant. In our case, on the other hand, it was called to vote for a package of 399 articles, also based on a “yes” and a “no”. In this way, a “sum of minorities” inevitably tends to occur, which radically distorts the final result. Simplifying, to present the argument: If a minority A (which constitutes, say, only 20%) opposes abortion and votes “Rejection” to the whole text, it joins a minority B (another 20%) that opposes the pluri-nationality and also votes “Rejection” to the whole text, and to them is added a minority C (another 20%) that opposes parity and votes equally “Rejection” to the whole text … we have a text formally rejected by 60%, although in reality, that “majority” is absolutely illusory. The right was left with only the task of persuading a few minorities on some issues considered controversial, so that the summation mechanics described above would operate effectively to protect their interests. With the overwhelming control of the media, the systematic use of lies, and the concealment of their emblematic faces, the task was extraordinarily easy for them. But that 62% certainly doesn’t belong to them. In other words, it would seem very reasonable to assume that, if one had voted “by article” (or, at least, “by topic”), the Approval would have won very broadly, even in spite of the unforced errors that have been pointed out.

Follow us on

The content expressed in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.

Original source in Spanish