If people would vote for what is good for them, the outcomes would look quote different. My father says he votes one party because of the financial aspect and laughs at me for voting a different party. The most recent election's plans showed, when vetted by an independent buro (I think it's a government agency), that this party's plans would be much better for basically every income group, and equally good for the top 10%, compared to the party my dad votes for. Do you think that sways him in the slightest? He's a well-educated high-income individual that reads a lot and stays current, who I'd have expected to have rational voting behavior if anyone has that.
Most people vote for parties whose plans don't match what they say they'll accomplish, such as lower taxes or whatever else they believe will be good for them. A greater percentage of naturalised immigrants than those with local heritage voting for the one party wanting to stop immigration and abolish religious freedoms, that sort of thing.
If someone has a better study on this, I'd be much interested, but that a court (in applying fundamental rights made up by people whose elected job it is to care for a country) disagrees with the average person on the street is not surprising to me
In every democracy there are people who are not satisfied with referendum results. Most come to terms with it because they still have confidence in the democratic system, and a few, often driven by lobyists, try instead to impose their will on the majority through some kind of bureaucratic trickery. In this case, it is interesting to see who is actually behind this: https://www.greenpeace.ch/de/erkunden/klima/klimagerechtigke...
Only if you limit yourself to a surface level reading of those two facts and don't think about them.
First of all, "Swiss voters" didn't reject the law, a majority of Swiss voters did. That may sound like semantics but it means the group that brought this case was likely not or not entirely part of the group that rejected the law.
Secondly, this assumes anyone rejecting the law in question disagrees with this case or the ruling. That seems highly questionable.
The law had some flaws but was generally expected to be affirmed by the referendum as it had a majority support in opinion polls before the referendum. It looks like there were some climate activists who opposed it for being insufficient and there were some who argued it did not adequately protect people who had to commute by car (which might explain why it was supported less outside the metropolitan centers). But the biggest factor seems to have been a public campaign backed by industries opposed to it, spreading what HN likes to refer to as "FUD".
This court ruling seems quite perplexing then, doesn't it?
[0] https://www.v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/switzerland-votes-on-c...