Mobilising support for the SRG initiative and individual taxation – majorities emerge in favour of pragmatic solutions

High turnout due to the perceived relevance of key proposals

At 55.8 per cent, voter turnout was well above the long-term average. A key driver of this mobilisation was the high perceived importance of individual proposals. In particular, the SRG initiative and the Federal Act on Individual Taxation were deemed to be of above-average relevance by voters and thus contributed significantly to the increased turnout. At the same time, mobilisation followed clear political patterns: turnout was above average among supporters of the GLP, the Greens, the SP and the FDP, whilst it was lower among SVP supporters.

Solutions with broad appeal are capable of securing a majority

A consistent pattern emerges across the proposals: the decisive factor was not primarily the perception of the problem, but the persuasiveness of the specific solution. In the case of the cash initiative, there was broad consensus on the underlying issue, yet the initiative was rejected, whilst the counter-proposal was clearly accepted with 73.4 per cent. The decisive factor was its more pragmatic and proportionate design. This pattern is also evident in the SRG initiative. Although the proposal was perceived as particularly important, its arguments failed to convince voters beyond its own camp. In contrast, the counter-argument for a media service based on solidarity and balanced across linguistic regions found broad support. Positions capable of winning a majority were thus those that remained capable of appealing across ideological divides.

Initiatives remain anchored in their political camps

The votes on the SRG initiative and the Climate Fund initiative highlight the limits of political polarisation. Both proposals clearly followed the left-right axis: the SRG initiative found support primarily among the right-wing spectrum, whilst the Climate Fund initiative remained anchored in the left-wing camp. Despite these clear profiles, both initiatives failed decisively – the SRG initiative with 61.9 per cent voting ‘no’, the Climate Fund initiative with 70.7 per cent. In both cases, the initiatives failed to mobilise support beyond their own political base. The counter-arguments were more widely supported in each instance: for the SRG initiative, this was particularly the solidarity argument in favour of the language regions; for the Climate Fund initiative, it was economic concerns and the view that existing instruments were sufficient. The results show that clear ideological positions alone are not enough to win majorities.

Individual taxation: capable of winning a majority despite political differences

The Federal Act on Individual Taxation was approved by 54.3 per cent and was also regarded as a particularly important piece of legislation. The decision clearly followed political leanings: support came particularly from the left-wing and Green spectrum, whilst opposition was rooted in the SVP and centrist camps. Unlike the initiatives, however, it was possible here to form an alliance capable of securing a majority. The basis for this was a broad consensus on the principle of equal taxation. The debate centred less on the objective itself and more on its implementation – for instance, regarding administrative burden or the impact on various family models. The argument for equality proved to be a key driver that was able to exert influence beyond the initiative’s own camp.

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