1Proposals that are submitted to the vote of the People are accepted if a majority of those who vote approve them.
2Proposals that are submitted to the vote of the People and Cantons are accepted if a majority of those who vote and a majority of the Cantons approve them.
3The result of a popular vote in a Canton determines the vote of the Canton.
4The Cantons of Obwalden, Nidwalden, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Appenzell Innerrhoden each have half a cantonal vote.
Article 142 BV regulates when referendum proposals are accepted. Switzerland recognises two different majority systems.
Simple majority of the people: Federal acts are accepted when the majority of voters vote yes. The level of participation is irrelevant. There is no quorum (minimum participation).
Double majority: Constitutional amendments and certain international treaties require both the majority of voters and the majority of the cantons (majority of the cantons). This means: At least 12 of the 23 cantons must agree. Six cantons have only half a cantonal vote: the two Basel, the two Appenzell and the two Unterwalden.
The cantonal result determines the cantonal vote according to the "winner takes all" principle. If 51 percent vote yes in a canton, the entire canton counts as a yes vote.
Example: The Corporate Responsibility Initiative in 2020 achieved the popular majority (50.7 percent) but failed to achieve the cantonal majority (only 8.5 out of 23 cantonal votes). The initiative was therefore rejected.
The cantonal majority is intended to protect small cantons from the dominance of large cities. This rule means that a person's vote in a small canton carries more weight than in a large canton. The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed that this inequality is intentional and lawful.
In the case of very close results, a recount may be requested. The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that an extremely close result is sufficient to justify a recount.
N. 1 The regulation of majority requirements for federal votes has a long tradition in Swiss constitutional law. The Federal Constitution of 1848 already provided for the double majority requirement for constitutional amendments. The current version of Art. 142 BV largely corresponds to Art. 123 old BV.
N. 2 According to the Message on a new Federal Constitution of 20 November 1996 (BBl 1997 I 1, 461 f.), the proven majority requirements were to be adopted unchanged. The cantonal majority was described as an «indispensable component of Swiss federalism» that ensures the protection of smaller cantons from the dominance of population-heavy centres.
N. 3 The provision on half cantonal votes (para. 4) historically stems from cantonal divisions: Basel (1833), Unterwalden (historically conditioned) and Appenzell (1597). According to BBl 1997 I 462, this regulation was retained despite democratic-theoretical concerns in order to preserve constitutional continuity.
N. 4 Art. 142 BV, together with Art. 138–141 BV, forms the core of direct democratic instruments at the federal level. The provision concretises the political rights guaranteed in Art. 136 BV for the specific case of federal votes.
N. 5 Systematically, Art. 142 BV is closely connected with:
→ Art. 34 BV (political rights), which guarantees the fundamental right protection of voting freedom
→ Art. 138–141 BV, which define the various ballot measures
→ Art. 150 para. 2 BV, which mirrors the cantonal majority in the Council of States
→ Art. 195 BV for the total revision of the Federal Constitution
N. 6Simple popular majority (para. 1): For federal acts and generally binding federal decrees according to Art. 140 para. 1 BV, the majority of valid votes cast suffices. Voter turnout is irrelevant; there is no quorum.
N. 7Double majority (para. 2): Constitutional amendments and the measures mentioned in Art. 140 para. 2 BV require cumulatively:
the majority of voters (popular majority)
the majority of cantons (cantonal majority)
Both requirements must be fulfilled. Failure to meet only one requirement leads to rejection of the measure.
N. 8Cantonal vote (para. 3): The voting result in the canton determines its cantonal vote according to the «winner takes all» principle. A narrow cantonal majority of 50.1% has the same effect as a clear majority of 80%.
N. 9Half cantonal votes (para. 4): The six mentioned (half-)cantons each have half a cantonal vote. With 20 full cantons and 6 half-cantons, this results in a total of 23 cantonal votes. The cantonal majority lies at 12 cantonal votes (11½ cantonal votes means rejection).
N. 10 Upon acceptance of a measure, the corresponding legal changes enter into force. The timing is determined by the transitional provisions or, in the absence of such provisions, by Art. 15 of the Publication Act (SR 170.512).
N. 11 Failure at the cantonal majority despite a popular majority has the same legal consequence as rejection by the people: the measure has failed. The Federal Supreme Court clarified in BGE 147 I 194 that this «restriction of voting power equality is constitutionally intended and binding for the Federal Supreme Court».
N. 12Recount in case of close results: A central point of contention concerns the prerequisites for a recount:
The Federal Supreme Court has maintained since BGE 136 II 132 the view that a very close result should be treated like an «irregularity» within the meaning of Art. 77 para. 1 lit. b BPR and establishes a right to a recount
Epiney/Diezig (BSK BV, Art. 142 N. 5) doubt whether the narrow formulation of the requirements in Art. 34 para. 3 BPR (making credible irregularities) is compatible with Art. 34 para. 2 BV
In BGE 141 II 297, the Federal Supreme Court specified that a recount must only occur when there are concrete indications of errors
N. 13Democratic-theoretical criticism of the cantonal majority: The different voting power of citizens from different cantons is controversially discussed:
Critics like Auer/Malinverni/Hottelier (Droit constitutionnel II, N. 1074) see a violation of voting equality
The prevailing doctrine (Hangartner/Kley, Demokratische Rechte, N. 2890; Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax, Verfassungsrecht, N. 3456) emphasises federalist minority protection as justification
Kley (SG Komm. BV, Art. 142 N. 8) points to the historical legitimation and the protective function for small cantons
N. 14Status of half-cantons: Jaag (ZBl 1979, 145 ff.) discussed after the founding of the Canton Jura the question of whether the half-cantons should become full cantons. Parliamentary initiative 92.444 to upgrade Basel-Landschaft to a full canton failed in 1995. The discussion remains academic, as a change would require the double majority.
N. 15 For the practice of voting authorities, the following consequences arise:
In case of close cantonal results (difference < 1%), increased care is required in the counting
According to BGE 147 I 194, complaints against the cantonal majority must be raised immediately against the voting arrangement, not only after the vote
The rare constellation of failure at the cantonal majority despite a popular majority (most recently in 2020 with the Corporate Responsibility Initiative) requires particular sensitivity in communication
N. 16 For initiators of constitutional initiatives, it should be noted: The «double hurdle» deliberately makes constitutional amendments difficult. Since 1891, only ten measures failed at the cantonal majority despite a popular majority, of which only two were popular initiatives (1955 and 2020). This underscores the importance of broad geographical support for constitutional initiatives.
#Majority of the cantons and majority of the people
BGE 147 I 194 of 23 March 2021
Criticism of the requirement of a majority of the cantons must be raised immediately against the voting order, not only after the vote has taken place. The majority of the cantons is constitutionally intended and binding on the Federal Supreme Court.
«The restriction of equal voting power is constitutionally intended and binding on the Federal Supreme Court. [...] According to the Federal Chancellery, this is only the tenth case in which a federal ballot proposal that achieved a popular majority failed solely due to the requirement of a majority of the cantons.»
Judgment 1C_713/2020 of 23 March 2021
Consolidation of several proceedings regarding the corporate responsibility initiative, which achieved the popular majority (50.73% yes votes) but failed to achieve the majority of the cantons (12.5 to 8.5 cantonal votes against the initiative). The judgment clarifies the legal remedies for voting complaints.
«On 29 November 2020, the federal popular vote took place on, inter alia, the popular initiative "For responsible enterprises - to protect human beings and the environment". [...] the cantons rejected the popular initiative by a ratio of 12½ to 8½, while the voters accepted the popular initiative with a majority of 1,299,173 yes votes (50.73%) to 1,261,673 no votes (49.27%).»
Judgment 1C_627/2020 of 23 March 2021
Further proceedings regarding the corporate responsibility initiative, which were written off as having become moot. The judgments demonstrate the Federal Supreme Court's coordinated approach to parallel complaints concerning the same vote.
«The proceedings 1C_627/2020, 1C_631/2020, 1C_633/2020, 1C_639/2020 and 1C_641/2020 are consolidated. The proceedings are written off as having become moot.»
BGE 112 IA 208 of 17 September 1986
Principles regarding voting rights complaints in cantonal initiatives. The voter has a right to have a properly achieved voting result recognised.
«The voter not only has a right to ensure that no voting result is recognised that does not reliably and authentically express the free will of those entitled to vote, but also to have a properly achieved voting result (or a properly conducted election) recognised.»
Judgment 1C_217/2021 of 12 May 2021
Further case law regarding the corporate responsibility initiative, which documents the rare situation where a proposal achieves the popular majority but fails to achieve the majority of the cantons. For popular initiatives, this was only the second time since 1955.
«According to that information, this has occurred with a federal popular initiative only once before, on 13 March 1955 with the popular initiative "for the protection of tenants and consumers (continuation of price control)".»
The six half-cantons (Obwalden, Nidwalden, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Appenzell Innerrhoden) pursuant to Art. 142 para. 4 BV are treated as self-evident in case law. Specific decisions regarding their calculation or legitimacy are not found in published case law, as this provision is constitutionally unambiguous and remains practically undisputed.