It is difficult to compare popular participation in Swiss elections with that of any other democratic country in Europe. The smallness of the country, the rugged nature of the land, the diversity of languages, the strengths of the traditions of local self-government, the variety of political institutions, and the multiplicity of elections make Switzerland a unique place for political experiments" (Gosnell 1930: 426).
A particular case
From a cross-national perspective, Swiss elections do indeed possess several distinctive features. First and foremost, turnout rates have recently oscillated around 45 percent, making them among the lowest in national elections worldwide. This fact is particularly puzzling since Switzerland is one of the oldest democracies, one of the most affluent countries and has a proportional representation (PR) electoral system, which are all factors that are generally believed to boost turnout (e.g. Norris 2004). Low turnout has been ascribed, first, to the emphasis on direct democracy in the Swiss constitution. Referendums and initiatives, it has been argued, provide citizens with extensive opportunities to exert institutionalised political influence beyond the parliamentary channel, thus rendering parliamentary elections less consequential than in purely representative systems (e.g. Wernli 2001). Furthermore, the extreme frequency of ballots -the Swiss federation holds three or four direct democratic votes a year, not to mention the numerous additional cantonal and local ballots -is suspected of having produced voter fatigue (e.g. Lijphart 1997). Secondly, some authors have blamed low turnout in Switzerland to a lack of what they call "executive responsiveness" (Powell 2000;Franklin 2004). Indeed, an informal agreement among the four governmental parties known as the Zauberformel (Magic Formula) has, until recently, ensured that, for a period of over 40 years, shifts in political parties' electoral fortunes did not have any