High turnout for the proposal voters considered the most significant of the legislative term

High mobilisation on politicised proposals

At 58.9 per cent for the popular initiative “No to a Switzerland of 10 million! (Sustainability Initiative)” and 58.3 per cent for the Civilian Service Act, turnout in June 2026 was well above the long-term average and above the level recorded in the vote of March 2026. Turnout in German-speaking Switzerland, at around 61 per cent, was considerably higher than in the French- and Italian-speaking parts of the country. Participation remained socially selective: older voters, those with higher levels of education and income, and those who are politically interested or affiliated with a party took part at above-average rates. Differences between men and women, by contrast, were small. The highest turnout was found among people aged 70 and over (77%). Turnout was also high at both poles of the left-right spectrum: 74 per cent among those positioning themselves on the far left and 72 per cent among those on the far right.

Pressure acknowledged, 10-million cap rejected

The popular initiative “No to a Switzerland of 10 million! (Sustainability Initiative)” was rejected with 45.2 per cent voting in favour and also failed to secure a majority of the cantons. Voters perceived the proposal as particularly relevant, and with a mean value of 8.1 on the salience scale it achieved the highest score of any proposal in the current legislative term. Voting behaviour was strongly politicised: support for the initiative came above all from SVP sympathisers, people positioned on the far right, and voters with low levels of trust in the Federal Council, the media and the European Union. People without any party affiliation also backed it by a narrow majority, meaning the proposal retained appeal beyond the traditional SVP base. Fundamental value orientations shaped the decision as well: voters with a strong orientation towards tradition and national belonging supported the proposal, while groups oriented towards contemporary values and gender equality clearly rejected it. In substantive terms, perceptions of strain relating to population growth and infrastructure resonated in part within the No camp too. Support for the initiative was driven less by arguments about protecting the natural environment than by considerations relating to migration and growth policy. At the same time, the proposed cap was met with scepticism by a majority, particularly in view of its potential economic and foreign-policy consequences. The decisive factor behind the No was therefore not a rejection of the underlying problem diagnosis, but scepticism towards the solution on offer.

Safeguarding the army convinces beyond the Yes camp

The amendment to the Federal Act on Civilian Service (Civilian Service Act) was approved with 52.5 per cent voting in favour. The proposal was perceived as less relevant than the Sustainability Initiative, but here too voting behaviour was politicised. Support came in particular from sympathisers of the SVP, the FDP and the Centre, from voters positioned on the right, from people with high levels of trust in the Swiss Armed Forces, and from those in favour of a strong army. At the same time, support remained limited: younger voters rejected the proposal more often than older ones, which also points to differing degrees of personal exposure and differing interests. The Yes camp focused on strengthening the armed forces and civil protection and on safeguarding troop numbers. The No camp emphasised freedom of conscience and the social value of civilian service, and questioned whether stricter rules would in fact strengthen the army. The decisive factor behind approval was that securing the personnel strength and operational readiness of the Swiss Armed Forces over the long term also found support beyond the Yes camp.

Further information and previous VOX publications can be found at www.vox.gfsbern.ch