[{"content":" In short: SP stable at 30%, Greens and GLP each grew from 6 to 12%, SVP from 13 to 12% after peaking at 19%, FDP and CVP/Mitte stagnating.\nHow are party votes distributed in the city of Zurich\u0026rsquo;s council elections since 1990?\nContext The city council (parliament, 125 seats) is elected by proportional representation. Voters can select candidates from different party lists (vote splitting) and list the same candidate twice (cumulation). Party vote shares result from the candidate votes attributed to each party – they are not a direct expression of individual party preferences, but a system outcome. The chart shows seven parties individually, from left to right: AL, SP, Greens, GLP, CVP/Mitte, FDP, SVP. \"Others\" includes EVP, LdU, and smaller parties. Decade averages smooth out individual election years.1\nVote Shares in Council Elections – City of Zurich Average per decade, normalised to 100%. Parties from left to right. 1990sSP 3167FDP 19SVP 139 2000sSP 34107FDP 16SVP 19 2010s6SP 30G 11GLP 105FDP 16SVP 17 2020s6SP 30G 12GLP 125FDP 18SVP 12 AL SP Greens GLP CVP/Mitte FDP SVP Others Average vote share per decade, normalised to 100%. Labels = rounded percentages. Source: Open Data City of Zurich. The SP holds the largest individual share across all four decades (30–34%). The Greens doubled from 6 to 12%. The AL grew from 2.5 to 6.3%. The GLP (since 2006) is stable at 10–12%.1\nThe SVP peaked in the 2000s at 18.5% – its highest level in the city. Since then, it has fallen to 12.0% in the 2020s. The FDP oscillates between 15 and 19%, while CVP/Mitte halved from 7.4 to 4.8%.\nDecade AL SP Greens GLP CVP/Mitte FDP SVP Others 1990s 2.5% 31.1% 6.0% – 7.4% 18.9% 13.3% 9.3% 2000s 3.5% 34.1% 9.8% 1.3% 7.0% 15.5% 18.5% 3.9% 2010s 5.9% 30.4% 11.1% 10.2% 4.7% 15.5% 16.8% 2.9% 2020s 6.3% 30.2% 12.4% 12.3% 4.8% 18.0% 12.0% 2.2% Turnout in council elections fluctuates considerably:2\nDecade Avg. Turnout 1990s 48.1% 2000s 40.9% 2010s 41.9% 2020s 46.6% 2006 was the low point at 33.7%, 2026 the highest since the 1990s at 50.4%. Who turns out to vote changes – and with it, what the vote shares represent.\nCity government elections (Stadtrat, 9 seats) follow a different system: majoritarian, i.e. individual candidate elections. Name recognition, incumbency advantage, and list alliances play a larger role than pure party strength. The vote shares shown above come exclusively from council elections (proportional representation).\nOpen Questions Unlike referendum results, election outcomes are not a directly comparable indicator of political preferences. Party votes are influenced by turnout, the range of parties, vote splitting (Panaschieren/Kumulieren), and the electoral system. Time comparisons are therefore only partially interpretable. Each decade includes 2–3 elections; the GLP has only existed since 2006. Open Data City of Zurich – Council Elections, Party Strength since 1913. Own analysis: average city-wide vote shares per decade. 1990s = 1990, 1994, 1998; 2000s = 2002, 2006; 2010s = 2010, 2014, 2018; 2020s = 2022, 2026. Parties shown individually. BGB/SVP = SVP; CVP/Die Mitte = CVP/Mitte; Others = EVP, LdU, and smaller parties. GLP only from 2006.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\nOpen Data City of Zurich – Council Elections, Turnout since 1892. Own analysis: average turnout per decade.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\n","permalink":"https://secondorder.ch/en/posts/2026-04-12_zuerich-wie-die-stadt-waehlt/","summary":"\u003cstyle\u003e\n  .so-chart { background: var(--entry); border-radius: 12px; padding: 24px 28px; margin: 24px 0; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.08); }\n  .so-chart-title { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: 4px; color: var(--primary); }\n  .so-chart-sub { font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .so-stack-row { display: flex; align-items: center; margin-bottom: 6px; }\n  .so-stack-label { width: 60px; text-align: right; padding-right: 10px; font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); flex-shrink: 0; }\n  .so-stack-area { flex: 1; display: flex; height: 32px; border-radius: 3px; overflow: hidden; }\n  .so-stack-seg { display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; font-size: 11px; font-weight: 600; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden; }\n  .so-legend { display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 12px; margin-top: 12px; font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-legend-dot { display: inline-block; width: 10px; height: 10px; border-radius: 2px; margin-right: 4px; vertical-align: middle; }\n  .so-footnote { margin-top: 12px; font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox { background: var(--entry); border-left: 3px solid var(--tertiary); border-radius: 0 8px 8px 0; padding: 16px 20px; margin: 20px 0; font-size: 14px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox-title { font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; margin-bottom: 8px; color: var(--primary); }\n  @media (max-width: 600px) {\n    .so-stack-label { width: 50px; font-size: 11px; }\n    .so-chart { padding: 16px; }\n  }\n\u003c/style\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn short:\u003c/strong\u003e SP stable at 30%, Greens and GLP each grew from 6 to 12%, SVP from 13 to 12% after peaking at 19%, FDP and CVP/Mitte stagnating.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"How Zurich votes"},{"content":" In short: In the 2010s and 2020s, 97% of parliamentary proposals are accepted. Pure popular initiatives pass 31% of the time. In between stands the counter-proposal – successful 70% of the time.\nWhat happens when the city of Zurich votes on its own affairs? Not on federal ballots, not on cantonal laws – but on its own budgets, regulations, and initiatives.\nContext Municipal votes in the city of Zurich follow three channels. Parliamentary proposals: The city council (Gemeinderat, 125 seats) approves budgets, regulations, or construction projects. Above a certain amount or in case of a referendum, the public votes. Popular initiatives: Come directly from citizens and demand a specific change. Counter-proposals: Parliament responds to an initiative with its own draft – often more moderate, offered as an alternative. Since the 1970s, the relationship between these three channels has shifted.1\nAcceptance Rate by Proposal Type per Decade Municipal votes, city of Zurich. Parl. = Parliamentary, CP = Counter-proposals, PI = Popular initiatives. 1970s Parl.80% (112) 1980s Parl.81% (100) 1990s Parl.83% (90) 2000s Parl.92% (80) 2010s Parl.97% (77) 2020s Parl.97% (63) 2010s CP69% (13) 2020s CP69% (13) 1980s PI27% (37) 2000s PI0% (7) 2010s PI36% (11) 2020s PI45% (11) Counter-proposals before 2010: only 0–6 per decade. Classification based on ballot text. Source: Open Data City of Zurich. Parliamentary proposals are rejected less and less often: from 80% acceptance in the 1970s to 97% in the 2010s and 2020s. The few rejections concern large-scale projects (stadium, convention centre) or politically charged topics (all-day schools, council compensation).1\nPure popular initiatives fail more often than not. In the 2000s, not a single one was accepted (0 of 7). Since then, the rate has recovered – to 45% in the 2020s.\nIn between lies the counter-proposal. Parliament takes up an initiative, drafts its own version – and this version passes about 70% of the time. The instrument is relatively new at this intensity: in the 1990s, there were none. Since the 2010s, there are 13 per decade. Topics: housing, cycling, green spaces, wages. The counter-proposal is the tool through which parliament absorbs popular initiatives and translates them into its own language.\nOpen Questions Classification is based on ballot text. For tiebreaker questions (3 since 1990), attribution is ambiguous. The numbers show the dynamic between parliament and voters, not the political direction of the proposals. Open Data City of Zurich – Vote Results since 1933. Own analysis: 375 municipal proposals of the city of Zurich since 1990 (city-wide results). Classification: \u0026ldquo;Volksinitiative\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Initiative\u0026rdquo; in title = popular initiative, \u0026ldquo;Gegenvorschlag\u0026rdquo; in title = counter-proposal, \u0026ldquo;Stichfrage\u0026rdquo; = counted separately (3 cases), remainder = parliamentary proposal.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\n","permalink":"https://secondorder.ch/en/posts/2026-04-10_zuerich-kommunal/","summary":"\u003cstyle\u003e\n  .so-chart { background: var(--entry); border-radius: 12px; padding: 24px 28px; margin: 24px 0; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.08); }\n  .so-chart-title { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: 4px; color: var(--primary); }\n  .so-chart-sub { font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .so-bar-row { display: flex; align-items: center; margin-bottom: 6px; }\n  .so-bar-label { width: 130px; text-align: right; padding-right: 12px; font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); flex-shrink: 0; }\n  .so-bar-area { flex: 1; display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 6px; }\n  .so-bar { height: 24px; border-radius: 3px; display: flex; align-items: center; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 11px; font-weight: 600; }\n  .so-bar-val { font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-footnote { margin-top: 12px; font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox { background: var(--entry); border-left: 3px solid var(--tertiary); border-radius: 0 8px 8px 0; padding: 16px 20px; margin: 20px 0; font-size: 14px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox-title { font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; margin-bottom: 8px; color: var(--primary); }\n  @media (max-width: 600px) {\n    .so-bar-label { width: 100px; font-size: 11px; }\n    .so-chart { padding: 16px; }\n  }\n\u003c/style\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn short:\u003c/strong\u003e In the 2010s and 2020s, 97% of parliamentary proposals are accepted. Pure popular initiatives pass 31% of the time. In between stands the counter-proposal – successful 70% of the time.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"What parliament waves through"},{"content":" In short: In cantonal votes in the 2020s, the city of Zurich deviates 10 percentage points from the canton-wide result. In the 1970s, it was 3.\nDoes the city of Zurich also deviate from its own canton? In an earlier note, the city\u0026rsquo;s growing deviation from the national result was documented. Here, the same measurement at the cantonal level.\nContext In cantonal votes, all eligible voters in the Canton of Zurich decide on the same ballot – laws, budgets, constitutional amendments. The city of Zurich is one of 162 municipalities in the canton. Its result can be directly compared to the canton-wide outcome. For every cantonal vote since 1933, the difference between the city of Zurich\u0026rsquo;s result and the canton\u0026rsquo;s can be calculated – regardless of direction.1\nMedian Deviation: City of Zurich vs. Canton of Zurich Cantonal votes, median absolute difference in percentage points per decade. 1970s2.9 PP (138 votes) 1980s3.6 (136) 1990s3.4 (152) 2000s5.6 (74) 2010s8.2 (98) 2020s10.0 (43) Absolute difference |ZH − Ct. ZH| in percentage points, median per decade. Source: Open Data City of Zurich. In the 2020s, the city of Zurich deviates 10.0 percentage points from the canton-wide result in a typical vote. In the 1970s, it was 2.9. The deviation has more than tripled.2\nUntil the 1990s, the deviation stayed in a narrow band of 2.9 to 3.6 percentage points. From the 2000s onward, it rises sharply – from 3.4 to 5.6, then 8.2, then 10.0. The increase is steeper than for federal votes, where the deviation roughly doubled over the same period.\nThe five largest deviations since 2000:\nBallot City of Zurich Canton Difference Affordable Housing (Nov. 2025) 59.7 % 40.7 % +19.0 PP Scholarship Act (Sep. 2024) 64.6 % 45.6 % +19.0 PP Parental Leave Initiative (May 2022) 52.9 % 35.2 % +17.7 PP Energy Act / Climate (Sep. 2025) 58.0 % 40.5 % +17.5 PP Affordable Housing / Tiebreaker (Nov. 2025) 57.7 % 40.6 % +17.1 PP The numbers show the size of the deviation between the city and the canton it belongs to. What drives it cannot be determined from this measurement alone.\nOpen Questions The increase from the 2000s onward is notably abrupt. Only 43 cantonal votes are available for the 2020s so far. The measurement shows the distance, not the cause. The measure used is the absolute difference between the yes-vote share of the city of Zurich and that of the Canton of Zurich, regardless of direction: |yes% city ZH − yes% canton ZH|. Summarised as the median per decade. The median captures the typical deviation and is robust against individual outliers.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\nOpen Data City of Zurich – Vote Results since 1933. Own analysis: 987 cantonal votes since 1933, of which 641 since 1970. All values calculated from city-wide results.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\n","permalink":"https://secondorder.ch/en/posts/2026-04-04_zuerich-kantonal/","summary":"\u003cstyle\u003e\n  .so-chart { background: var(--entry); border-radius: 12px; padding: 24px 28px; margin: 24px 0; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.08); }\n  .so-chart-title { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: 4px; color: var(--primary); }\n  .so-chart-sub { font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .so-bar-row { display: flex; align-items: center; margin-bottom: 6px; }\n  .so-bar-label { width: 90px; text-align: right; padding-right: 12px; font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); flex-shrink: 0; }\n  .so-bar-area { flex: 1; display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 6px; }\n  .so-bar { height: 24px; border-radius: 3px; display: flex; align-items: center; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 11px; font-weight: 600; }\n  .so-bar-val { font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-footnote { margin-top: 12px; font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox { background: var(--entry); border-left: 3px solid var(--tertiary); border-radius: 0 8px 8px 0; padding: 16px 20px; margin: 20px 0; font-size: 14px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox-title { font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; margin-bottom: 8px; color: var(--primary); }\n  @media (max-width: 600px) {\n    .so-bar-label { width: 70px; font-size: 11px; }\n    .so-chart { padding: 16px; }\n  }\n\u003c/style\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn short:\u003c/strong\u003e In cantonal votes in the 2020s, the city of Zurich deviates 10 percentage points from the canton-wide result. In the 1970s, it was 3.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Zurich vs. Canton"},{"content":" In short: In a typical federal vote in the 2020s, the city of Zurich deviates 13 percentage points from the national result – twice as much as in the 1970s.\nDoes the city of Zurich vote differently from Switzerland? If so: by how much, and is it changing?\nContext In Swiss federal votes, all eligible voters across the country decide on the same ballot – whether popular initiatives, referendums, or constitutional amendments. Results are tallied nationally and by municipality. This allows a direct comparison: How did the city of Zurich vote, and how did Switzerland as a whole? For every federal vote since 1933, the difference between the city of Zurich\u0026rsquo;s result and Switzerland\u0026rsquo;s can be calculated – regardless of whether Zurich voted more or less in favour. What matters is the size of the deviation.1\nMedian Deviation: City of Zurich vs. Switzerland Federal votes, median absolute difference in percentage points per decade. 1970s5.6 PP (86 votes) 1980s7.7 (62) 1990s7.9 (100) 2000s8.3 (93) 2010s9.0 (83) 2020s12.8 (59) Absolute difference |ZH − CH| in percentage points, median per decade. Source: Open Data City of Zurich. In the 2020s, the city of Zurich deviates 12.8 percentage points from the Swiss result in a typical vote. In the 1970s, it was 5.6. Each decade is higher than the last.2\nIn the 2020s, the deviation rises from 9.0 to 12.8 percentage points. So far, 59 votes are available for this decade. Whether the increase holds with more data remains open.\nThe five largest deviations since 2020:\nBallot City of Zurich Switzerland Difference Climate Policy Initiative (Nov. 2025) 41.5 % 21.7 % +19.8 PP Climate Fund Initiative (Mar. 2026) 49.1 % 29.3 % +19.8 PP Individual Taxation (Mar. 2026) 72.9 % 54.3 % +18.6 PP Property Tax on Second Homes (Sep. 2025) 42.1 % 57.7 % −15.6 PP E-ID Act (Sep. 2025) 63.9 % 50.4 % +13.5 PP The numbers show the size of the deviation. What causes it – demographics, urbanisation, the mix of ballot topics – cannot be determined from this measurement alone.\nOpen Questions Only six years of data are available for the 2020s so far. The measurement shows the size of the deviation, not its cause. The measure used is the absolute difference between the yes-vote share of the city of Zurich and that of Switzerland, regardless of direction: |yes% ZH − yes% CH|. Summarised as the median per decade. The median captures the typical deviation and is robust against individual outliers.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\nOpen Data City of Zurich – Vote Results since 1933. Own analysis: 587 federal votes since 1933, of which 483 since 1970. All values calculated from city-wide results.\u0026#160;\u0026#x21a9;\u0026#xfe0e;\n","permalink":"https://secondorder.ch/en/posts/2026-04-01_zuerich-stimmt-anders/","summary":"\u003cstyle\u003e\n  .so-chart { background: var(--entry); border-radius: 12px; padding: 24px 28px; margin: 24px 0; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.08); }\n  .so-chart-title { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: 4px; color: var(--primary); }\n  .so-chart-sub { font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .so-bar-row { display: flex; align-items: center; margin-bottom: 6px; }\n  .so-bar-label { width: 90px; text-align: right; padding-right: 12px; font-size: 12px; color: var(--secondary); flex-shrink: 0; }\n  .so-bar-area { flex: 1; display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 6px; }\n  .so-bar { height: 24px; border-radius: 3px; display: flex; align-items: center; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 11px; font-weight: 600; }\n  .so-bar-val { font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-footnote { margin-top: 12px; font-size: 11px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox { background: var(--entry); border-left: 3px solid var(--tertiary); border-radius: 0 8px 8px 0; padding: 16px 20px; margin: 20px 0; font-size: 14px; color: var(--secondary); }\n  .so-infobox-title { font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px; margin-bottom: 8px; color: var(--primary); }\n  @media (max-width: 600px) {\n    .so-bar-label { width: 70px; font-size: 11px; }\n    .so-chart { padding: 16px; }\n  }\n\u003c/style\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn short:\u003c/strong\u003e In a typical federal vote in the 2020s, the city of Zurich deviates 13 percentage points from the national result – twice as much as in the 1970s.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Zurich votes differently"},{"content":"This is about economics, politics, and history — and more. Finding patterns, turning them into theses, testing them — sometimes seriously, sometimes playfully. Classically liberal.\nWith the ambition to understand a topic beyond the first answer — and Switzerland as the reference point, not because it\u0026rsquo;s perfect, but because among the real-world implementations of liberal ideas it ranks near the top.\nZurich, April 2026\n","permalink":"https://secondorder.ch/en/about/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is about economics, politics, and history — and more. Finding patterns, turning them into theses, testing them — sometimes seriously, sometimes playfully. Classically liberal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the ambition to understand a topic beyond the first answer — and Switzerland as the reference point, not because it\u0026rsquo;s perfect, but because among the real-world implementations of liberal ideas it ranks near the top.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZurich, April 2026\u003c/p\u003e","title":"About"}]