A good amount of evidence, arguments, interests and pressure led to several laws in Germany regarding bans on public indoor smoking.
Bavaria created at first a rather strict version of such a law (still with a loophole, though). The Bavarians are used to single party state governments and more than average rhetoric and political action in their state.
The tobacco and pub lobbies struck back and scored a success after a new election; the Bavarian law was watered down to irrelevance.
Yesterday, the Bavarians had a plebiscite on the whole topic and it looks as if 61% of the votes are in favour of a really strict version (no exemptions whatsoever). The initiative behind this plebiscite had a budget of 70,000 € while the opposing initiative was mostly financed by tobacco industry and the association of pub owners with 600,000 €.
- - - - -
Well, what does this anecdote show?
It shows us anecdotal evidence that representative democracy can be more susceptible to special interest influences than plebiscites.
The anti-plebiscite faction still uses the old and wrong argument that the electorate is very susceptible to manipulation and that professional politicians, not the people themselves, should vote on bills.
Well, that argument was always illogical, for how could you be able enough to vote well on thousands of not even yet discussed topics at once in a general election if you aren't supposed to be able enough to vote well on a single known bill?
The anti-plebiscite faction should be exposed as anti-democracy faction; they don't believe in the voters (= the people = the sovereign in Germany!). They believe in oligarchy or worse.