on the example of the American federalism of the XIX century, the average American can imagine as the Swiss political system looks. There are the Swiss cantons similar to American states. Also there is the Swiss federal legislature which is similar to United States Congress. However Americans are inclined not to notice
that scales of political units to Switzerland it is much less, than to United States of America. When the Swiss speaks about how the Swiss policy leans generally on cantonal level of board, he means that the Swiss policy is concentrated round political unit of the size of the small American city. And though often Swiss cantons are equated to American states, an essence what even the smallest from the point of view of the population staff of United States of America is more, than 4 of 26 Swiss cantons.
Opposite, the largest Swiss canton (on population) is Zurich with the population in 1,5 million people. It does it less than 11 states of United States of America. But the majority of the Swiss cantons is much less. Really, the average population of the Swiss cantons makes 234 thousand people, it is the size State of Texas, Gilberta, State of Arizona. (On the average 324 thousand people). The smallest canton totals only 16 thousand people.
the Physical size of the Swiss cantons is much less, considering that all Switzerland is less State of West Virginia. State of Rhode Island, the smallest staff of United States of America is, more, than 5 Swiss cantons. The largest Swiss canton, Canton of Graubunden, has the sizes Puerto Rico and less, than State of Connecticut.
is obvious that from the point of view of the size and scales American states it is much more, than the Swiss cantons as a whole.
To United States of America the average volume of the population of staff makes 4,5 million people, in 20 times more the average number of the Swiss canton. (Average population of United States of America on one state makes 6,4 million people). When we speak about cantonal level of management to Switzerland, we speak about local government in comparison with states of United States of America where even sparsely populated states, such as State of South Dakota is, much more, than all cantons, except 2 largest cantons Switzerland, being much more from the point of view of physical geography.
If United States of America consisted of the states which are coming nearer on population to average population of the Swiss cantons, to United States of America would be more than 1300 states. And in everyone there would be a population about a quarter of one million people.
Considering the small size of these political divisions, potential for taxpayers, "voting feet", even it is more, than to United States of America where migratory models often give preferences to states with lower tax and standard burden.
Size and political representation.
the Size of political jurisdictions also has serious impact on political representation.In earlier article "To United States of America Have to Be 10 Thousand Congressmen", was noted that to United States of America exclusively high level of ratios between politicians and citizens.
That is constituencies are huge according to standards as Europe, and Latin America. Moreover, they are also huge according to standards of Americans of the XVIII century who wrote the constitution of United States of America.
In particular, to United States of America is 535 Congressmen who allegedly represent 320 million people. It means that 598 thousand inhabitants of United States of America. Meanwhile, to Germany 130 thousand inhabitants on one member of national legislature are. In Canada – 99 thousand people. To Switzerland – 33 thousand people.
In 1790 Congressmen presented to
in 1800 422 thousand people who were represented by 16 Congressmen were. At that time senators were not elected directly therefore if to consider only members of the House of Representatives, the average size of the constituency in State of Massachusetts in 1800 made 30 142 people. To reach such indicator today, to United States Congress 10 thousand members will demand.
It also not problem of the national legislation.
are Also huge constituencies in states of United States of America in comparison with number of members of cantonal legislature Switzerland. For example, to United States of America the number of inhabitants on one legislator of staff fluctuates from 3 105 people in New Hampshire to huge 310 thousand people to State of California.
To Switzerland number of the Swiss inhabitants on one cantonal legislator fluctuates from 8 200 in Zurich to the minimum number in 327 people in Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden. But instead of rushing to extremes, let's take the average Swiss canton and the average American state. For example, in Indiana 6,6 million inhabitants and 150 legislators that means are that about 43 thousand inhabitants are the share of each legislator. In the Swiss canton Friburg with the population of 311 thousand people the cantonal legislature totals 130 members. Thus, in Friburge about 1200 inhabitants on each legislator.
In other words, to Switzerland it is quite reasonable to expect that representatives of cantons will be familiar with the population, local culture and local problems. Here it is possible even to face this or that legislator on the street, especially if he represents only 2 thousand inhabitants. The number of voters on each legislator, of course, is even less. from the point of view of the constituency size even the legislator of staff often presents to
the small city To United States of America, State of California or Tucson, State of Arizona.
of the Consequence
When we consider distinctions in sizes and scales of political and selective jurisdictions, it is possible to see that in many cases of jurisdiction of United States of America in 10 or 20 times what are to Switzerland exceed. These huge distinctions in geography and a demography emphasize a number of realities which are cornerstone of many political and institutional distinctions dividing Americans and Swisses.As United States of America, and Switzerland apply federal structure. However in many respects the Swiss political system much more decentralized, than American. For example, to Switzerland there is no chief executive, and the policy still has the decentralized character, and the governments of cantons exercise big control and influence in areas of culture, the public finances and health care.
Moreover when we speak about cantonal level of management to Switzerland, means that to United States of America would call local government in policy. The Swiss cantons by the size are usually equal to the small municipal area to United States of America. Besides, the political representation is superdemocratic according to modern American standards, and in many cases 1500 inhabitants are the share of one cantonal legislator.
of the Consequence of it are considerable. Considering local character of the government and the small sizes of constituencies, voters have absolutely other relations with public institutions.
For example when services, intended for local government, are financed by the local cantonal government, it means that state services, including social benefits, such as subsidies for health care, are financed not by any other anonymous taxpayer living for one hundred or even one thousand miles. The small size of the canton means that means arrive from taxpayers, from the people living literally in the neighbourhood. In such cases it is more difficult to consider democratic policy as a question of receiving something from any far faceless "oppressor". When important political institutes are close to people, desire "to take a high probability of that there will be a responsibility for community, instead of money and to run away".
Actually, the size of the constituency is in many respects interconnected with the public expenditures, as shown in researches Thornton Mark, George S. Ford and Thornton Mark Ulrich.
Thornton Mark declares that the size of the constituency explains the most part of a tendency or a tendency to increase of the public expenditures because of the fixed extent of the majority of legislature. Large constituencies increase expenses on carrying out campaigns and, therefore, depend on large funds in questions of purchase of mass media and access to means of mass media more. For example, the cost of carrying out campaign of staff to State of California much more, than expenses on carrying out campaign in State of Vermont.
- the Elected officials, incapable to attract considerable part of the constituencies, rely on the groups of interests declaring that they are representatives of voters.
- Voters do not participate because they understand that their voice is worth little in larger groups.
- Voters do not participate because they cannot personally meet the candidate.
- Voters do not participate because elections in larger constituencies with smaller probability will be concentrated on the questions representing a personal interest for many voters.
is more difficult to hold personal meeting with the elected official in the big district, than in the small. Officials recognize that one voter has the minimum value in the big constituency therefore candidates prefer to rely on mass media, instead of on personal contact with voters.
larger groups of voters is religious, ethnically, cultural, ideologically and are economically more various. It means that the elected officials will be less inclined to divide voters on social classes, ethnic groups and other characteristics from considerable number of the voters.
larger constituencies often mean that the candidate is physically more removed, even if it not in parliament or the Congress. It reduces possibility of access.
Certainly, anything from this cannot reduce the importance of cultural distinctions between Swisses and Americans. However these distinctions also can be strengthened by political institutes. At a view of superlarge institutes of United States of America – in comparison with the small localized political institutes – it is difficult to present Switzerland