IMAGINE if you could choose how many weeks holiday you took each year.

Or how many immigrants arrived in Australia. How much was spent on the military, whether abortions were legal or exactly what the country invested in.

It’s either a blessing or a curse, depending on your point of view, but decisions like this are the daily reality for people in Switzerland under their unique system of direct democracy.

It means citizens head to the polls every three months to vote on a range of issues at local, canton (state) or federal level. The decisions include everything from where sex workers can operate to whether to join the EU and if minarets should be built on top of mosques.

Under the system, anyone who gains 100,000 signatures on an issue can propose a popular initiative to demand an amendment to the constitution. This will then be put to a vote and if passed by a majority of people in a majority of the 26 cantons, will lead to a constitutional change.

This week, three significant referendums grabbed national headlines.

One proposal started by a conservation group and known as the ‘Ecopop’ initiative sought to reduce immigration from 80,000 a year to just 16,000 in order to preserve the natural environment in the country of 8 million people.

A second vote asked people whether the central bank should increase their gold reserves from seven per cent to around 20 per cent. A third initiative sought to abolish tax discounts for rich foreigners living in the country.

Each proposal was resoundingly rejected. The immigration idea was shot down by 74 per cent of the vote, while the gold reserves plan was opposed by 77 per cent of people. Fifty nine per cent were against the tax discount idea.

SO IS IT A GIANT WASTE OF TIME?

Not at all, say advocates of the Swiss system which is a famous hallmark of the country renowned for providing an “unusually detailed” level of participation to ordinary people.

As well as having the right to propose an initiative of their own, citizens have veto-rights on laws proposed by parliament through an optional referendum, as long as they can gain 50,000 signatures within three months to support their cause. If they succeed in getting a majority vote, the legislation can be rejected.

MORE: Read more about the Swiss political system here

Swiss Consul General Ernst Steinmann said although voting is not compulsory, the opportunity to have a say on everything from local decisions to major national issues is generally thought of as a “big value asset to have these political rights”.

“By taking responsibility you have less friction against the government because you can say ‘I voted for this.’”

“It’s very positive, the majority of people don’t take it as a hassle because you don’t have to vote ... There is good common sense in having this process. The chance to make a big mistake is rather small,” he said.

Monash University lecturer in European Studies Dr Ben Wellings agreed the system, which evolved partly due to the unique geography of the country, helps create a stable political environment and returns “politics to the people” giving them a greater say in day-to-day decisions.

“It provides an avenue for political action that doesn’t rest on political parties. On the other hand, what I think it does is leads to people with quite specific political interest seizing the debate. For those people who don’t care about politics it puts them in a precarious position compared to those that do.”

‘YOU THINK YOUR OPINION COUNTS’

For Philipp, a Swiss citizen living in Sydney, it’s a way of ensuring people stay engaged and means “politicians are just executing the wishes of the majority.”

“It’s not like most countries where you get to vote every three or four years and you wait and see what you get out of it with politicians breaking promises like they do here all the time.”

“You think that your opinion counts which helps identifying yourself with Switzerland and its people, that’s what it does to me.”

While voting isn’t mandatory, Philipp said the fact there are usually between six and 10 issues up for a vote at once means there is always something he is interested in.

“I’m generally quite engaged and interested in politics. I try to use that vote I’ve got for the right purpose.”

“In other countries the government lives in some ivory tower whereas the Swiss government serves the people and if the people are not happy with what the government does they still can change it.”

SO WOULD IT EVER WORK HERE?

Dr Wellings said given the last referendum in Australia was in 1999 there’s a strong argument having votes every three months would lead to “fatigue factor” in a system where it’s already compulsory.

“I think it probably could work, you could do it, but I’m not sure it would be very helpful. I’m not sure it would re-engage people in politics.”

He said it also raises questions about how citizens initiatives would be raised given it’s relatively easy to raise 100,000 signatures in a digital age.

“On the one hand does that increase voter engagement or is it equivalent to buying a top from H&M. What’s the value in it?”

Australian National University’s doctoral candidate in European politics Thomas Lalevee agreed the system could work, citing the recent introduction of a citizens’ initiative in the European Union as an example of how the idea is being taken up elsewhere.

“In the long term having something similar in Australia might inspire people to get involved and feel that their voice mattered. That disenfranchisement is a really big problem.”

“You can see that being a big issue at the moment in the way the government is pushing reforms that are very unpopular. If there was a way to get reforms [through] that might be a way of improving the feeling among the general population that their voices are being listened to.”

Do you think a direct democracy system would work in Australia? Continue the conversation on Twitter @newscomauHQ | @Victoria_Craw