The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Yes Yes A few No, don't be silly, there is no chance to get second preference voting in place before the 2017 elections.
Right, that's sorted, then ... though if second preference voting was in place, it would see a lot more seats filled in the first round, and likely frame the second round second round voting well enough that the need to stand down to allow the potential coalition partner through would be minimized. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
At a guess, it would largely solve the UMP's problem with triangular second rounds vs. the PS and FN, which will cost them dearly this time. If a majority of FN voters give their second preference to the UMP, this would probably tip the balance to elect the UMP candidate in the first round, in most cases.
Insofar as it gives more power to electors at the expense of the parties, it's a good thing I guess... though it hurts to say so. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
In 2007, with second preference, Bayrou would have won in a landslide.
Of course, proportional representation would be the right thing to do for parliementary elections. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Actually, not necessarily. It depends on how it would be organised. So I should take that back. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Condorcet method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Condorcet method is any election method that elects the candidate that would win by majority rule in all pairings against the other candidates, whenever one of the candidates has that property
While not the strict definition an approxiamtion is that the least disliked candidate wins. Wheter this is good depends (imho) on what you are electing. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
The two round general election system is oriented to accomplishing a similar end as the second preference system, but generating more work for journalists. But given the 12.5% of registered voters ~ 15.6% of the electorate with 80% turnout, 19.2% of the electorate with 65% turnout ~ a second preference makes it easier for minor parties to get over the line for the second round. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Likewise, the system would probably encourage the natural tendency of the mainstream right to run two candidates, since they wouldn't have to worry so much about being eliminated by the FN.
So it's all positive for the presidentials. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
It doesn't seem that the Green Party or the Radicals are in a position to make many demands of the PS, if they are dependent upon an electoral coalition with the PS for their representation in parliament.
So it would come down to whether the FDG is required to form a majority, and what price in electoral reform the FDG could extract.
MMP on whatever numbers on offer would seem to be the first best outcome for the FDG ~ any other electoral reform would be a consolation prize if MMP is out of reach.
Of all the electoral reforms ~ preferential voting, multi-member STV, MMP ~ while second preference wouldn't have as dramatic an impact, it also comes with the least likelihood of increasing FN representation, so long as the FN remains relatively second preference toxic. However, that likelihood would have been even lower before Sarkozy's efforts to woo the FN electorate. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
(BTW I corrected some typos/grammar.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The most likely alternative are:
The PM is still anyone's guess although the grapevine says JM.Ayrault, mayor of Nantes and current PS group leader at the National Assembly (discussed here). We'll know next Tuesday once Hollande is inaugurated.
Lire : Conseil fédéral tendu à Europe Ecologie-Les Verts
Are the Left Radicals (MRG) still about or are they being treated as a wholy owned subsidiary of the Socialists?
As I understand French political history, the centre right have been less cohesive and has created more unstable parties than the centre left. The UMP is the latest version of an attempt to contain as many fragments of the centre-right as possible within one organisation. Will it survive, without a President to follow?
As I mentioned in the diary, Jean-Luc Mélenchon's Parti de Gauche (PG), a splinter branch of the PS created in 2008, will run in about 100 districts and the Communist Party (PCF), the other component of the Front de Gauche (FDG) in the remaining 400 or so. Historically, the PS has agreed to withdraw its candidates in the districts where the PCF candidate was ahead at the end of the first round. Will the same agreement apply to all FDG candidates, including Mélenchon? Probably...
The Left Radicals (now PRG) are indeed practically a subsidiary of the PS, for this election at least: the PS has reached an agreement with the PRG and the Greens (EELV) and will support directly the PRG and EELV candidates from the first round in respectively 32 (PRG) and 60 (EELV) districts. For instance, in my district, the PS won't run any candidate and will support the incumbent Green MP.
As you probably know, the characterization of UMP party as "centre-right", although frequent in the English language press, is hotly disputed here on ET. But you're right: the UMP has been trying to absorb as many centrist groups as possible, Bayrou's MoDem having been the only outlier.
The real challenge to the UMP's cohesion is not the loss of Sarkozy's leadership (heirs are already popping up), but the drift towards an more or less open alliance with the FN, as openly proposed by some from the 'Droite populaire' current: this would most likely cause the remaining centrists and probably many traditional gaullists to quit the UMP.
Historically, the PS has agreed to withdraw its candidates in the districts where the PCF candidate was ahead at the end of the first round. Will the same agreement apply to all FDG candidates, including Mélenchon? Probably...
To do otherwise would be unthinkable. Do you know of any example (other than rogue independants) where there was more than one left-wing candidate in the second round of a legislative district?
The principle of désistement républicain is part of the bedrock credo of the French left. All the dirty tricks are concentrated in the first round, and the second round is dedicated to beating the right. If the PS were to decide to break this rule and maintain candidates where they came in behind the FDG, the results would be cataclysmic :
Bernard:Historically, the PS has agreed to withdraw its candidates in the districts where the PCF candidate was ahead at the end of the first round. Will the same agreement apply to all FDG candidates, including Mélenchon? Probably... To do otherwise would be unthinkable. Do you know of any example (other than rogue independants) where there was more than one left-wing candidate in the second round of a legislative district?
As for extending the PS/PRG/EELV electoral agreement to the FDG (PCF and Parti de Gauche), I haven't seen any signs in this direction but it may yet happen. It has happened in the past: 1997, 2002 (Gauche plurielle), but not in 2007. Anyway, as you noted, even in the absence of a first round agreement, any FDG or Green candidate coming ahead of the PS candidate will receive full support from the PS (barring a few local ego battles).
European Tribune - French Parliamentary Elections: a look under the hood
since 2002, the parliamentary elections are taking place about a month after the presidential elections, especially now that the length of the presidential term has been changed from seven years to five years, exactly the same as the term for the National Assembly MPs.
So how did this happen? There were several periods of cohabitation, as Bernard notes. This caused no major dysfunction or difficulty in the institutions of the Republic; the Constitution defines pretty clearly the domains which are reserved for the President (foreign policy and defense, principally) and there was little conflict. The only downside, from my point of view, was that the left and right were obliged into working in concensus on these questions: but since 1981, the left haven't been much good on these issues anyway.
On the whole, during cohabitation, France functioned as a parliamentary regime, and this suited me far better than the presidential regime we had before or since. When a referendum was held in 2000 on aligning the Presidential and parliamentary terms at 5 years, I would have voted against it (but didn't yet have my papers).
My wish with respect to electoral reform was for a regime that was not only parliamentary, but democratic : i.e. proportional representation. The election platform of the combined left (Gauche Plurielle : PS, PC, Verts, MRG) in 1997 included the introduction of PR. Somehow, the government of Lionel Jospin forgot to implement this (even though the PS, on its own, did not have a majority in the Assembly : the small parties missed an historic opportunity there). On the contrary, Jospin became infected with Great Man Syndrome, and cut a deal with President Chirac. Between them, they staged a soft coup d'état.
It must be emphasised that the referendum text did not specify the order of the presidential and parliamentary elections. The question was solely on aligning them on five-year terms. The logical and democratic order would be to hold parliamentary elections in order to determine the will of the people, then presidential elections to confirm, or even to counter-balance, the result. But Chirac and Jospin, once the constitutional amendment was in place, simply fixed the order of elections afterwards in the order that suited their intent : not only re-presidentialising the regime by reducing the influence of Parliament, but bipolarizing it, by ensuring that parliamentary elections will be reduced to an affrontment between the parliamentary blocs of the winning and losing candidates... thus steamrolling the small parties, even more than the two-round system naturally does.
...OK, got that off my chest. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
However, since Parliamentary elections can be called ahead of time, a new president could always dissolve the parliament and call new elections. Under the old 5-7 system, ther was no way to avoid 2 years of cohabitation at the end of a president's term if the elections coincided at the start and the voters soured towards the president at the end of his mandate. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
It seems that if there is a coalition majority this time, the minor party partners could engineer a reversal at the end of the current Presidential term. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Better would be a modification of the electoral system to introduce a proportional element...
This is in Hollande's program : 100 seats (out of 577) to be elected with PR. He hasn't specified, as far as I know, what sort of PR... the best would be a MMP system as in Germany or NZ, where list seats compensate the district seats, to ensure overall proportionality. However, 100 out of 577 would be inadequate for this, they would all go to the minor parties, and still leave them under-represented). More likely, he is talking about an integrally proportional list for the 100, which is of limited interest : a bastardization which could produce perverse effects. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
100 seats on MMP would still be a substantial change in the representation of third parties. Why is that in the PS interest? Is it to see FN members elected and introduce discord in possible parliamentary center-right coalitions? I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
But experience suggest that it will come to nothing; the "menace" of representation for the FN will be put forward as an excuse, but collusion with the UMP in order to maintain the current bipolar parliamentary model will be the underlying reason.
OK, I want to believe in Hollande's sincerity. But I believed in Jospin's sincerity, so that's not frankly a good indicator.
(I feel the need for a diary about the disastrous effects of "great man syndrome".) It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The least they could do.
Meanwhile, at the OK corral,
Two partridges with one cartridge for the UMP. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
So the answer to that question is no. The relevance is in the first round : the absence of a PS candidate might ensure that he's not knocked out by the UMP. But that's rather condescending; I don't think he's in any danger on his home turf.
All the more so if the UMP endorses Nihous. That's a way of throwing the election to Bayrou without doing so explicitly; to avoid insulting the future, as they say. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
But I reckon he'll win anyway (and will be very lonely in parliament). It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
This comes after Bruno Gollnisch, former number 2 of the Front (and unsuccessful rival as leader) stated that they had a "hit list" of UMP leaders that they were aiming to defeat. This, in itself, implies a promise of potential co-operation with others not on the list... It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
So, for a total of 577, we are looking at :
Factor in the FN, which will be maintaining candidates wherever it can (or blackmailing UMP candidates into selling their soul). If the UMP maintains its cohesion, it will probably lose a couple of dozen seats to the left over and above the general left/right swing, out of both the "vulnerable" and "safe" categories. If the local UMP candidates cut deals with the FN, it's even better : the right gets a few more MPs, but becomes a battlefield for the next five years. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I assume that the PS has their "useful vote" argument well oiled and ready to crank into top gear, already being warmed up in the Presidential first round. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Here are the numbers from 2007, a low ebb for the left, where non-PS candidates suffered particularly from the "useful vote" fallacy.
1st round 2nd round Seats Parti socialiste (PS) 24,73 42,25 186 Parti communiste (PCF) 4,29 2,28 15 Les Verts 3,25 0,45 4 Divers gauche (DVG) 1,97 2,47 15 Parti radical de gauche 1,32 1,63 7 Gauche parlementaire 35,56 227
Even if the FDG and EELV double the numbers of the PCF and Les Verts respectively, this will mostly be scattered, and insufficient to get anyone to the second round on their own.
The PCF benefits from the concentration of their vote in historic bastions, and can be expected to win some back. Mélenchon's Parti de Gauche has no such bastions, and as I have heard no more about concessions by the PS, he will be lucky to get anyone at all into parliament, himself included.
EELV cut its deal with the PS months ago, and has about 60 districts which are "reserved" for them by the PS (who will not run candidates there). Of these, 18 to 24 are considered "winnable". Of these, anything up to half will actually be won by rogue candidates from the PS, not running under their party's colours... this will be a running gag throughout the campaign, I will keep y'all updated. I'm predicting 12-15 EELV MPs, hoping for more. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I don't know French coalition politics, but from the outside, that doesn't look like a scenario in which serious concessions can be extracted by the balance of left MP's. In NZ politics, that's a scenario where a potential coalition partner would be offered baubles and trinkets and an outer ministry or two. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I was at an EELV gathering this evening - organising for the legislative campaign in one of Lyon's districts - and I did a flash survey: how many believe that Hollande will really intorduce a degree pf PR? To my surprise, a majority of the dozen people there think he's sincere.Are they naive, or am I qn old cynic? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Indeed a touch of cynicism as one gets older is an indication that one was paying attention. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
In 2007, Le Pen got 25% in the first round. The PCF candidate got 11.5 The second round was between her and a socialist, who won it 58/42.
Libération leaves unsaid the main reason why it's such a good idea : there's a major corruption scandal involving the PS in this area. Mélenchon would have a pretty good chance of making it to the second round.
Right-wing candidates got a majority of the votes in the first round in 2007 (FN 25, UMP 15, Modem 13), but, roughly speaking, the Modem electorate tipped it to the socialist in the second round. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
He said the reason the FN was in a strong position was PS absence due to corruption scandals, see your commesnts immediately below.
The PS has sticky fingers, hence the scores of the FN in this depressed former mining region. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Les Inrockuptibles is an excellent cultural magazine. I read the article when it came out, and have been surprised that so little had come of it. Visibly, it has indirectly given rise to the judicial proceedings mentioned above.
So, for the moment, no new proof of illegal financing of the PS by siphoning of the social housing organizations. "Only" individual corruption, and one more sitting PS MP torpedoed. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Cette fois c'est officiel : Dominique Baert, maire socialiste de Wattrelos et député sortant dans la 8e circonscription, sera candidat à sa propre succession.
This time it's official: Dominique Baert, Wattrelos Socialist mayor and incumbent in the 8th district, will be a candidate to succeed himself.
I know they have very weak popular support, but they also have some regional strongholds (like Normandie), so can they count on any parliamentary seats? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Being a minister in the French government is incompatible with being a member of Parliament; nevertheless, typically, a majority of ministers are selected from Parliament (Assembly and Senate), and therefore resign their seats. In the French system, this does not lead to by-elections, because each district actually elects a two-person ticket : the MP has a suppléant (Alternate) who can replace them in case they die, go mad or join the government.
Cécile Duflot, who has been the high-profile Secretary of, successively, Les Verts and EELV over the last four years, is considered a dead cert for a portfolio in Hollande's government. This enables her to resolve the problem posed by the revolt of the sitting MP in the district "gifted" to her by the PS (who had threatened to run against her, without the official backing of the PS). It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Lire aussi : Législatives : les réponses à vos questions
Lire aussi : Hollande fait ses adieux au PS et appelle à une "large" majorité
As predicted, the PCF have gone back to their cosy habits of negotiating with the PS, leaving Mélenchon's Parti de Gauche out in the cold. The PG are trying to climb back in through the window of "anti-FN" arrangements, on which they place a very wide interpretation.
Meanwhile, also as predicted, EELV learns (in case we had forgotten) that promises are only binding on those that believe them.
No doubt I will post more anon on the Lyon constituencies mentioned. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The PS, FDG and EELV were trying to make a deal to present a common candidate in those districts where the division of the left vote in the first round created a risk of a second round between the UMP and the FN, with no left candidate. There are something like 50 of them, of which very few are winnable for the left.
It seems that Mélenchon's Parti de Gauche was using the discussions to ask for winnable districts -- a legitimate demand in itself, but not the one on the agenda.
In these situations, the PS always holds the whip hand, and you don't get anything for nothing. The PCF and EELV are used to this process; the PG, as combative newcomer, was not in a position of strength. Mélenchon, having announced his ambition to supplant the PS as the main force on the left over the next couple of electoral cycles, got the treatment I expected from the PS, who are absolutely ruthless about preserving their hegemony.
Apparently the PCF were prepared to sign off an agreement without the PG; but the PS, chuckling to itself, refused this.
(I note that EELV were prepared to cede 6 of their 63 "reserved" districts to the PG. But, no deal having been signed, they will maintain their candidates.)
Meanwhile, out of the 63 districts where the PS supports an EELF candidate, 20 "dissident" candidates of the left are running.
Winning the battle of legitimacy in the first round in such a context is hard, but doable (I will perhaps expand on this one of these days) It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 2 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 21 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 18
by gmoke - Jan 18
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 15 2 comments
by Oui - Feb 5
by Oui - Feb 4
by Oui - Feb 33 comments
by Oui - Feb 34 comments
by Oui - Feb 112 comments
by Oui - Feb 1
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 312 comments
by Oui - Jan 29
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2815 comments
by Oui - Jan 281 comment
by Oui - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 267 comments
by Oui - Jan 25
by Oui - Jan 24
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2411 comments