Scandals in Communist Frenchystan
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@PleegWat said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
But most of all, it's recorded in a different context, which leads to putting different emotions in it.
I suspect that's the main thing. Though the tessiture of the voice is probably less affected by the recording setting/effects, and also honestly I'd be surprised if his voice had not changed at all in 40 years.
Actors (and, I'm guessing, also singers) tend to have a lot less change in voice over the years, compared to the regular population. Because, y'know, voice is something they work on very consciously.
-
@PotatoEngineer said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
I'm guessing, also singers) tend to have a lot less change in voice over the years, compared to the regular population.
Singers' (at least male singers) voices do tend to become at least a little deeper and darker as they age. For example, Plácido Domingo, one of the famous "Three Tenors", started singing baritone roles about 10 years ago. However, I don't know how this compares to women's voices or the regular population.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
On the other, there is a strong anti-EU sentiment in France
Leaving's not worked out so well for us so far.
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
and yes we all agree that Brexit is a shit-show but opinions are split as to who is to blame most
It's not that split here.
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
using it as a precedent isn't as dumb as it sounds
Our stellar job of it can be used as an example of how not to do it.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Plácido Domingo, one of the famous "Three Tenors", started singing baritone roles about 10 years ago.
TIL. This is good news. Fuck tenors, seriously fuck their can't even track melody eyeballs. But I always did like his voice alright, in specific. I'll have to see what he sounds like now that both descended.
-
@loopback0 said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Leaving's not worked out so well for us so far.
Yeah but you'd need people to think rationally about it to realise that.
and yes we all agree that Brexit is a shit-show but opinions are split as to who is to blame most
It's not that split here.
While I personally do agree with you, I haven't seen any formal poll/discussion of that in France but I believe that the strong anti-EU feeling in some people would lead them to judge that the EU was at least as much responsible as the UK. Note that I'm talking feelings here, which is all that matters when people decide how they vote (and which, somewhat counter-intuitively, is actually the only thing on which everyone can agree -- facts are disputable but if someone tells you how they feel, well, that's how they feel!).
See e.g. Barnier's campaign (to be the right-wing party candidate, which he wasn't in the end). His party is officially pro-EU but being so much involved in the running of it, and being the main EU Brexit negotiator, definitely was not seen as a strength by most people in his party.
Well, having less charisma than a wet sock didn't help him, but the EU thing also mattered.
Our stellar job of it can be used as an example of how not to do it.
Some people (and maybe Le Pen herself) may actually think that, without any hint of sarcasm. This may be why she isn't formally talking about leaving the EU but doing something else instead. I believe it's a pipe dream, but I'm not gonna vote for her anyway (if anyone was in doubt from my post history...), so obviously I disagree with her.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
there is a strong anti-EU sentiment in France
There's a strong anti-EU sentiment in a lot of places. Turns out, you can't standardize down to the color of the road markings without parts of the population starting to have thoughts like "I thought we signed up for a trade union, not some new Roman Empire."
-
@acrow Sure.
Though, I wouldn't have problems with standardizing, but some of the agenda they are pushing does not have much to do with that.
-
@Bulb If the agendas were targets, and actual measures were left to individual nations, it would probably draw less ire than standardization. People just don't like being under the authority of an outside force. And the standardization brings the external authority right under people's noses.
I also don't agree with a lot of the agenda itself. But this not
. So let's leave it there.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
and yes we all agree that Brexit is a shit-show but opinions are split as to who is to blame most
It's not that split here.
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
using it as a precedent isn't as dumb as it sounds
Our stellar job of it can be used as an example of how not to do it.
One important aspect is the high expectation. I am not sure about France, but in many other countries the image of UK was of a "country run by a competent statesmen, not like the baboons we have in <country>".
IMHO this is the real damage of Brexit: UK went from the shining beacon on the hill, the pinnacle of democratic civilization... to a country that is "better than Portugal".
So at least in this aspect, Frexit will end up better.
-
@acrow said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
there is a strong anti-EU sentiment in France
There's a strong anti-EU sentiment in a lot of places. Turns out, you can't standardize down to the color of the road markings without parts of the population starting to have thoughts like "I thought we signed up for a trade union, not some new Roman Empire."
Maybe you should educate the people then what a trade union means.
Also, no. The EU is not a mere trade union and never was intended as such.
-
@acrow said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
People just don't like being under the authority of an outside force.
so ... any state? it is just a matter of your point of view. Around here the Belgian state is seen by many as an outside force to the Flemish government (that isn't a 'state'). That has been the driving force behind the federal/confederal/seperatist movements.
-
@Rhywden said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Maybe you should educate the people
Try again without starting with this phrase, it makes me laugh too hard and I miss the rest.
-
@Luhmann said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Around here the B*****n state is seen by many as an outside force to the F*****h government (that isn't a 'state').
Yes, yes, it's all very disgusting, please watch your fucking language.
-
Guys, please try to keep that thread non-
. I know I'm not myself totally unbiased here, but I try to shit at least a little bit on everyone.(and yes, the joke about a thread about France being derailed by a German invasion was already done, by myself, somewhere in the very first posts)
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
UK [...] a country that is "better than Portugal".
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Guys, please try to keep that thread non-
. I know I'm not myself totally unbiased here, but I try to shit at least a little bit on everyone.(and yes, the joke about a thread about France being derailed by a German invasion was already done, by myself, somewhere in the very first posts)
OK! OK!
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
and yes we all agree that Brexit is a shit-show but opinions are split as to who is to blame most
It's not that split here.
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
using it as a precedent isn't as dumb as it sounds
Our stellar job of it can be used as an example of how not to do it.
One important aspect is the high expectation. I am not sure about France, but in many other countries the image of UK was of a "country run by a competent statesmen, not like the baboons we have in <country>".
IMHO this is the real damage of Brexit: UK went from the shining beacon on the hill, the pinnacle of democratic civilization... to a country that is "better than Portugal".
So at least in this aspect, Frexit will end up better.
In my nation of idiots, the UK has been viewed as a nation run by a bunch of shouting apes. Much because of that's how it actually looks during debates. Brexit didn't do much to improve the view though.
-
-
@boomzilla said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Guys, please try to keep that thread non-
. I know I'm not myself totally unbiased here, but I try to shit at least a little bit on everyone.(and yes, the joke about a thread about France being derailed by a German invasion was already done, by myself, somewhere in the very first posts)
OK! OK!
Ononononon
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
UK was of a "country run by a competent statesmen
They kinda ran out of those after Maggie.
-
@Carnage said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
In my nation of idiots, the UK has been viewed as a nation run by a bunch of shouting apes.
That's not too different from how the UK is viewed here.
-
@loopback0 I don't trust the idiots in my country to discern between a shouting ape and a competent statesman.
-
@boomzilla One of those is so rare that very few people have any experience recognizing one.
-
And here we go again. Macron 58%, Le Pen 42%. And more than 25% of people didn't vote.
*deep sigh*
-
@Zerosquare The difference is bigger than several people predicted. Of course, you now cannot say if the widened gap came about due to those predictions.
-
Yes. Still, this is the third time a far-right candidate ends up in second place, and the gap keeps narrowing:
2002: 82% / 18%
2017: 66% / 34%
2022: 58% / 42%
-
@Rhywden said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Also, no. The EU is not a mere trade union and never was intended as such.
Of course. But that didn't stop it from being sold as one to the populace of
.
-
(warning: armchair expertise ahead!)
@Zerosquare OTOH, it's the first time a sitting president (who isn't a lame president without a majority (1)) gets reelected, and an incumbent always scores poorly. So how much of Macron's "bad" (2) score is due to that, is anyone's guess.
(1) historical note: two other presidents got reelected, Mitterrand in 1988 and Chirac in 2002 but in both cases they had lost the previous parliamentary elections (in 1986 and 1998, IIRC) and thus they were effectively in the opposition. Consequently they were able to run on a classical platform of "I will be different from the current government," which Macron couldn't do. So his victory is unique in France's (recent-ish) history.
(2) he still won with a huge margin, so calling it a bad score is only true if comparing to selected previous cases. But obviously one such comparison is 2017, and he won much less convincingly now than then.
Also as @Rhywden pointed out, he got a score significantly larger than what was predicted originally -- at some points a couple of weeks ago polls were giving him barely 52% or so. So there is still a strong anti-Le Pen movement.
I do think that the name "Le Pen" still repulses a lot of people. And I think she is aware of it, and I take as proof of that the fact that she is mostly campaigning as "Marine" (her first name). Her first-round propaganda flyer was a clear case of that: the only place where her name appeared was in a picture of a ballot paper. Even in the tiny print, it was only ever "Marine."
-
Now for the next round: parliamentary elections are coming up in June.
Historically, the new president has always won a majority in those elections, even when he won his presidency on a thin margin. For exemple in 1981 Mitterrand won with less than 52%, but won 68% of seats in the following parliamentary election. More recently in 2012, Hollande won with 52%, everyone thought him a very lame candidate, and he still got 57% in parliament. More detailed polls/analyses show a consistent trend in favour of the winner. So that would bode well for Macron.
The other thing is that the parliamentary election being, in effect, 577 small presidential ones (i.e. same 2 rounds voting system, with some small differences that may matter but let's not go into details right now), it favours parties that can gather a large support (to beat their opponent in the 2nd round). Which, again historically, has never been the case for Le Pen. For example in 2017, her 2nd-round in the presidential election became a measly 10 seats (2% or so)! So again, that's pretty good news for Macron.
OTOH, again we're in new territory with an incumbent being reelected. There are very few cases of a parliament staying with the same majority as before in an election. This happened in 2007 (when Sarkozy succeeded Chirac), and before that... I don't know, I'd have to check the result in the 70's or earlier (I'm pretty sure it happened at least in 1968). So that's not good for Macron.
Also, while Le Pen might (maybe...?) struggle with those elections, the left's candidate (Mélenchon) was neck-and-neck with her in the 1st round, and the left has a strong culture of building alliances (not that they always work very well!). So he might be the real danger for Macron, and he's already jockeying to put himself in the limelight for that.
(which is kind of ironic: one of Mélenchon's plank is how the president has too much power, to the detriment of all other kind of elected representatives, but his campaign for MPs is already looking to be about voting for him as (future) PM rather than voting for his ideas and representatives!)
-
Oh, one more thing: a lot of comments this morning about some polls that indicate that about half of Macron's voters voted for him to oppose Le Pen's idea, rather than to support his ideas. This is pushed in particular by the left, to undermine Macron's legitimacy, and it is indeed a fair point.
(ETA: Macron himself has acknowledged that and said he would take it into account, but I'm not holding my breath there -- it doesn't cost him much to say it, he has to say it to ensure a victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections, but after that, he can do what he wants. Chirac made the same promise in 2002 after winning against Le Pen, and went on to thoroughly ignore it afterwards...)
However, very few comments mention that in Le Pen voters, about the same split can be observed (about half voted against Macron rather than for Le Pen). And even less comments mention that this has always been a feature of a 2nd round -- by nature, you're left with two candidates and a large share of voters always have to pick the least of two evils rather than the best of the lot. So I'd be careful about reading too much into all that.
Similarly, a lot is made of the abstention, which was fairly high. And it indeed was (compared to previous presidential elections), no doubt about it. But notably, the only case in the past where abstention was higher was in 1969, and that time was also the only time both 2nd-round candidates were broadly from the same side (right/centre-right). So clearly the high abstention then reflected the disinterest of a large share of voters (=the left) for the result, and I believe the high abstention now reflects some of the same. Which indicates that, to a large share of the left, Le Pen's policies aren't really anathema, or at least not much more than Macron's. Which speaks to either Le Pen's "normalisation" or Macron's "radicalisation," whichever way you want to read it.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
lot of comments this morning about some polls that indicate that about half of Macron's voters voted for him to oppose Le Pen's idea
Does that translate to
glass wallorfur wall?
-
In case you missed it, we have a new Prime Minister. Yeah. Well, that's it.
OK, not quite, but really it's not a big deal.
The most notable thing is that Elisabeth Borne is only the 2nd woman to ever hold that post, so of course that's notable. Aside from that, she's from the left-wing of the current government, so really not much to say. She's an obvious gesture towards the left (to try and woo voters from the left in the upcoming MPs elections), at the same time being from the previous government she's being lambasted by the left as being not-from-the-left. Wow, much surprise, so unexpected...
The real choice of a PM will be after the legislative elections (in less than a month now). If Macron wins, she's likely to stay. If he looses, well obviously she'll have to go. But despite polls giving an overall advantage to the left (see e.g. this wiki page), once you account for the various constituencies and the voting mode, Macron looks set to win (see the same page). Although of course no one does polls in all 577 constituencies so the numbers include a lot of guessing, but still.
One fun tidbit from that campain: Mélenchon (the left's leader) officially campaigns to be Prime Minister (i.e. "vote for my party so that I will be PM") which is funny given that a large part of his presidential platform was to change the republic so that the executive has less power, but now he's telling voters to give all powers to a single person (himself)
(he's not even candidate for MP himself, which really kills his idea of "parliament should have more power" when he tells people to use the parliamentary election to pick a PM from outside it).Another potential fun thing: Borne herself is candidate for the parliamentary elections (she can't be minister and MP so if she were elected she'd have to resign from one of those, most likely MP, this is a rather common thing here). In previous elections, this has been used by newly picked ministers (I'm not sure it happened with PMs?) to get some sort of public confidence vote, the interesting bit being that some presidents have sacked ministers who failed to get elected. So if she looses her constituency, it would put Macron in an awkward position even if he wins overall.
Oh, you may notice that there isn't a word in all that about Le Pen? Well, as usual, her party has still not managed to get any sort of solid grassroots and is still unable to build local coalitions, so she's projected to win at most 10-20% of seats, far behind Le Pen's support in the presidential election. Which will probably once more stir some shit and whining about how the system is unfair. Which is something all winners magnanimously say immediately after winning they'll change it, and then "forget" about it later on, so I expect the same will happen here (the usual excuse is that it requires changing the constitution and "it's too hard, the other side doesn't want to do it my way, there are more pressing things" and so on).
-
@remi goddamn
s.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Which will probably once more stir some shit and whining about how the system is unfair.
There is more than one way to slice up the bear.
-
@boomzilla said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@remi goddamn
s.Hey, I don't say anything when you
about Magic the Gathering or Appellation d'Origine Controllée, so if you don't care to read about my local , Just don't Do It 
.
-
@remi it was more the details about who can or can't be PM vs MP that got my head spinning.
-
@boomzilla Oh, right. Yeah, I got a bit messed up trying to use equivalent English terms to try and keep things international. I'm not sure using député and premier ministre instead of MP/PM would have helped a lot. Maybe?
(also, and because
ing is what we do around here, we might as well get that out of the way: there is no clear and single unambiguously accepted title for a women prime minister. As always, the Académie probably has something to say about it, and as always everybody ignores them. So feel free to call her madame le Premier ministre, madame la Premier ministre or madame la Première ministre, they're all possible -- though in practice I don't think the 2nd will be used a lot.)(no ambiguity on the capitalisation though, it's always capital-P, small-m)
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Appellation d'Origine Controllée
It's a counterfeit. The genuine one is spelled Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée.
-
@Zerosquare Yes, but no. Don't try to pass your counterfeit ones for the real thing.
The real genuine one is spelled appellation d'origine contrôlée (
, because I'm not going to out- without backing it up, from the law itself). 
(though for most things (but not all, and I think in particular not wine?), the appellation d'origine protégée is more appropriate)
-
Time for your irregularly scheduled Very Short and Concise post about French politics!
French elections: Macron loses majority as French vote fragments
Less than two months after re-election, the president loses control of the National Assembly.
The parliament was elected, a few weeks after Macron's win in the Presidential election. Our system uses 2-rounds ballots (as in the Presidential election, with one added tweak that didn't really matter this time) in each of the 577 constituencies, so it's rife with all sort of
edge effects. That usually favours moderate parties that can gather a large 2nd round support, and also makes pollsters' work very hard.The main results are:
- Macron has the largest number of MPs (240), but he's missing about 50 to get an outright majority. That's a large setback for him.
- The left coalition led by the far-left Mélenchon has the second largest group (140) but that's still far short of any sort of majority, which means it's kind of a setback for him as well (especially counting that his coalition is just that, not a single unified party, so it will likely shatter into its constituting parties very easily).
- The far right RN led by Le Pen (the 2nd round loser in the Presidential election) won an unprecedented 90 seats or so, which technically makes her party the 2nd largest one (because Mélenchon's coalition is a coalition, not a single party). It's a clear victory for her, though it still leaves her very far from any real position of power.
- The moderate right (Les Républicains, I'm not even going to bother giving you any leader's name because nobody knows them, but they were Sarkozy's party, so pretty large a few years back!) managed to salvage 70 seats, far less than in the previous Parliament so it's a continuation of their downwards slide of the Presidential election (where their candidate didn't even reach 5%) but still a notable chunk.
- Abstention was very high (55%), at least for France (I know some countries often have that kind of numbers, but not so much here), although it's not the highest ever recorded (2017 was higher).
Before giving you my view of the consequences, a note on polls: they were pretty accurate in terms of vote share, but the election mechanism means tiny changes in the way voters pick a 2nd round candidate can change the outcome quite drastically. This is what seems to have happened for the far-right, where the polls gave them at most 50 seats (40 less than what they got!), even though in terms of overall national vote share the number was very close. Anyway, that's far less interesting than the actual results.
-
What does that all mean? (this is
partlyalmost entirely speculation, of course)The obvious thing is that Macron needs to build a majority (duh).
This could happen with some sort of coalition. The only party who could be open to that (and large enough to bring him the numbers) are the moderate right, but they're currently ruling that out. Though in the past weeks/months, some of them have trickled to Macron, so it's not impossible. OTOH, those who are "Macron-compatible" have already swapped over to him, so what's left of the right is likely not very keen on Macron. So IMO a full coalition is unlikely.
Instead, a more likely solution is a case-by-case agreement where on each major vote Macron has to bribe the right to gather a majority, which would end up with him governing more to the right than he would if he had won an outright majority.
For reference, this is what happened in 1988 where the newly reelected Mitterrand was missing 15 votes to get a majority and his prime minister Rocard had to seduce a few more votes every time. But he was only missing 15 votes, not 50!
If Macron fails to build a majority (and he will need one pretty soon as one of the first things the new Parliament will do is a confidence vote for the prime minister, in a couple of weeks at most), he won't be able to have a government or pass any laws. He can keeps things that way as long as he wants, but it would be a political nightmare for him so at one point he will have to cave in. Ultimately, the only way to break that deadlock is by Macron dissolving the Parliament, which he can do at any time (but after having done so, he can't do it again for a year).
If that happens...
guaranteed! If he does that right now (or very soon), it's very likely that this will be seen as political manoeuvring (which it obviously is anyway, but public perception etc.), the dynamic against him will intensify and he'll likely loose a lot of seats. To the extreme, this is what happened to Chirac in 1997 (he had a working majority, but too small to his taste, so he called an early election and lost it entirely).Instead, I would guess that Macron is likely to wait and let the situation rot, so that he can try and pin the blame on the other parties, hoping that then the political mood would turn and people would be more willing to give him a working majority. This could work because of the high abstention, including from his own supporters (a third of his first round vote base of the Presidential election abstained!). But this first needs a few months of political chaos.
Also, an early election might become a self-realising prophecy: if other parties see that Macron has no hope to get a majority and will end up dissolving, then they have possibly less incentive to accept a compromise with him to find that majority! This IMO is somewhat likely given that, contrary to many other countries, France hasn't really a culture of government coalitions, so many parties will likely prefer not to have one.
-
Finally, what about the other two main groups (far-right/far-left)?
For the far-right (Le Pen), this is rather straightforward. She will have a strong group in Parliament for the first time, which she will use as a platform, but she is extremely unlikely to directly be involved in any laws so she'll stay in pure opposition.
(the reason for that, from Macron's perspective, is that any measure likely to attract the far-right is also a measure that will attract the moderate right, and if he attracts the moderate right he gets his majority, so he has no need to try and woo the far-right, which would be extremely hard to swallow for him anyway)
Maybe as a hint of things to come, Le Pen has said she will not lead her party, focusing instead on leading her political group in Parliament. This may be a continuation of the trend where she said just after her 2nd round defeat in the Presidential election that she will not run for President again (in 2027), and where the interim leader of her party (Jordan Bardella, who will now take over the party) is getting a lot of exposure in e.g. campaigning material. In other words, she may be preparing her succession. But of course 2027 is very far away and she's still relatively young, so who knows?
For the left, it's an ambiguous position. Ostensibly, Mélenchon is the largest group in Parliament (after Macron), but his is a coalition, not a united party. Breaking down by party, his own party (which is the furthest-left part of the coalition) is about half his seats (70 out of 140). Which means there are a lot of more moderate left. They will stick with him initially, but on the long term... again, who knows?
It's also sort of a defeat for him in the sense that he clearly campaigned with the goal of him becoming prime minister (i.e. being the largest group), which obviously failed. Mélenchon is, IMO, more and more looking like an eternal looser: a strong contender, who makes a lot of noise and generates a lot of support, but ultimately always looses just an inch from success.
So he will lead the fight in the coming weeks. If another election looms, I think he will try again. If, OTOH, Macron manages to find a majority... I don't know, but it's possible that his coalition will fritter away and his support disappear. On a personal level, he is not very young so he is unlikely to stay leader for very long, and he has also said he would not run again in 2027 (which, again, is far away from now, but still).
-
Also, a couple of words on how all that might have happened (purely IMO, though I heard some commentators saying bits of that).
My view is that during the Presidential election Macron clearly benefited from the campaign being as quiet as possible, with the Ukrainian crisis (and the end of the COVID one) helping him a lot. He kind of continued this trend for this campaign, with his side being relatively quiet, but probably misjudged how the mood had shifted in a few months (with e.g. (not exclusively, but it's a good example) people being less interested in international events, and more focused on the direct consequences to their national life). So he was too complacent.
Add to that the fact that he won as the incumbent, which meant he could ride a wave of "hope for change" that any new President usually has. That probably meant that from the start he was unlikely to get as big a majority as the outgoing one.
Conversely, his relatively short win in the Presidential election, and what's seen as just "5 more years" probably motivated the opposition (both far-right and far-left) and gave them a boost. There is an obvious "Macron fatigue" and the fact that he won a second mandate was actually somewhat lucky for him in the first place.
The far-right (Le Pen) is probably reaping the fruits of her long process of local grassroots movements, and the progressive falling down of what's called the "republican front" that meant she faced a less determined opposition.
On the other side, the fact that the left managed to unite themselves (even if it's a weak alliance), after at least 5 years (or maybe even 10) of division, probably helped them: a lot of voters probably thought that "at last" voting for the left might be useful.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Mélenchon is, IMO, more and more looking like an eternal looser: a strong contender, who makes a lot of noise and generates a lot of support, but ultimately always looses just an inch from success.
Reminds me of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn: just a bit too left and a bit too stubborn to directly attract enough centrists to win or to do the deals necessary to fix that.
-
@dkf There are some similarities, yes, though both Bernie and Corbyn are (were) operating from within existing left-wing parties (with moderate left wings), whereas Mélenchon has clearly struck a very hard-left line for the past 20 years (he was with the moderate left before that, but left them long ago), and has instead managed to progressively eat away all of the centre-right.
Mind you, that description of "just a bit too [extreme] and a bit too stubborn to directly attract enough centrists" also describes Le Pen. She has always clung very tightly to her anti-mainstream (right or left) line and consequently she never managed to attract enough support from the mainstream right. This would seem to be less and less true (more and more centre-right voters are voting for her), but she's still not in power (nor likely to get it in the next 5 years).
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Abstention was very high (55%), at least for France (I know some countries often have that kind of numbers, but not so much here), although it's not the highest ever recorded (2017 was higher).
From where I'm sitting, that doesn't look like a particularly low number. How does abstention normally look in France?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Abstention was very high (55%), at least for France (I know some countries often have that kind of numbers, but not so much here), although it's not the highest ever recorded (2017 was higher).
From where I'm sitting, that doesn't look like a particularly low number.
Let me guess: like in the most of USA, the election day is a workday (Tuesday) and polling station is determined by the residence, so it's a PITA for most people to actually go there (I imagine).
In France, election is on Sunday.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I added that aside because indeed I know it's not particularly high for some other countries.
There is a long trend in increasing abstention in all elections over the past 50 years (at least), and "typical" abstention level varies according to the elections, so it's not a single data point and it's arguable whether it's "anomalous" in any way. This page (in French, but tables and numbers don't need translation) has a lot of numbers.
Presidential elections have the highest turnout and are somewhat of an outlier compared to other elections, with 20-30% abstention (but like every other elections, this has increased over time from 15-20% 40 years ago, although with less increase than others).
Parliamentary elections have seen a clear increase, from 20-30% in the past to 50+% nowadays. The same picture (with slightly different numbers) is seen with regional elections, departemental and municipal ones.
As I said it's a long trend and all elections in recent years have had abstention levels to 50% or far more, but in the overall public perception and the way people react to it, this is seen as a problem. I would guess that the political mental framework considers anything above 20-30% as "higher than it should be" (which is highly subjective and many other caveats, but you asked for how it "normally looks like" and this is what people would say is "normal").
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
Abstention was very high (55%), at least for France (I know some countries often have that kind of numbers, but not so much here), although it's not the highest ever recorded (2017 was higher).
From where I'm sitting, that doesn't look like a particularly low number.
Let me guess: like in the most of USA, the election day is a workday (Tuesday)
Well yeah. When else would you have it? In the USA, the Constitution says you have to have the election on Tuesdays, so we have the elections on Tuesdays. (modulo a bunch of
stuff.)The history of it is that when they wrote the Constitution, most people were farmers and most farmers went into town on Tuesdays for the market. They picked Tuesday because that's the day most people were in town.
and polling station is determined by the residence
Aren't the French electing their local representatives to their parliament? With "local" being defined as "if you live between these lines on the map, you live in this district" and the ballot is different in each district because each candidate only needs to win in their district?
How else would you do it other than deciding which polling place to go to based on where you live?
so it's a PITA for most people to actually go there (I imagine).
This isn't actually true. There's two reasons that turnout in American elections is so low. For one thing, we have really shitty politicians. For another thing, American culture is more accepting of "You both suck. I'm not voting for either of you" as a valid choice in an election. In Europe, as I understand it, there's a harder cultural pressure to hold you nose and vote for the least bad option. To the point where some countries make it the law that you have to cast some vote. That would never fly here.
-
@remi said in Scandals in Communist Frenchystan:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I added that aside because indeed I know it's not particularly high for some other countries.
There is a long trend in increasing abstention in all elections over the past 50 years (at least), and "typical" abstention level varies according to the elections, so it's not a single data point and it's arguable whether it's "anomalous" in any way. This page (in French, but tables and numbers don't need translation) has a lot of numbers.
Presidential elections have the highest turnout and are somewhat of an outlier compared to other elections, with 20-30% abstention (but like every other elections, this has increased over time from 15-20% 40 years ago, although with less increase than others).
Parliamentary elections have seen a clear increase, from 20-30% in the past to 50+% nowadays. The same picture (with slightly different numbers) is seen with regional elections, departemental and municipal ones.
As I said it's a long trend and all elections in recent years have had abstention levels to 50% or far more, but in the overall public perception and the way people react to it, this is seen as a problem. I would guess that the political mental framework considers anything above 20-30% as "higher than it should be" (which is highly subjective and many other caveats, but you asked for how it "normally looks like" and this is what people would say is "normal").
Thanks.
If absenteeism is 20% higher than it usually is (based on your rough estimate), do you have a guess as to why? Do you think it's a perception that none of the candidates are very good? A perception that most of the Parliamentary seats are in areas that are pretty "safe" for whichever party holds them, so one individual vote is unlikely to matter? People being afraid of congregating indoors to vote because of COVID?
