The presidential election is France is conducted as follows:
Candidates win their parties nomination.
6-10 candidates are presented in an open election.
Lacking a majority, the top 2 have a run off.
Here is the problem. The top two candidates are almost always more extreme than many of the losers. This year, a Conservative and Socialist won leaving far right, far left, and centrists behind.
Specifically, the most central candidate who tested highest in the polls for favorability got 18.5% of the vote. The Socialist posted 25.7% and the Conservative 37.1%. In a runoff between either the conservative or the socialist and the centrist, the centrist would win with at least 60% of the vote. However, the political system that enforces a two party runoff favors candidates that take non-centrist positions and are able to polarize the vote.
Thus, without the ability to vote for a center candidate many will simply not vote. The turnout for the general election was nearly 85%, only 70% is expected for the runoff. Also, the roughly 50% of the vote that goes the other way in this election will be left with a candidate reflecting the opposite of the views.
Thus, you end up with 65% of the population unhappy with the outcome. In fact, a full 35% could be enraged by it and the other 30% unhappy with either candidate.
This system will nearly never result in a centrist candidate and will always result in a large number of people being governed by a political opposite.
Is this better or worse than our 2 party system? I just cant tell for sure, but Im thinking even this cluster is better than ours.
They are some real differences between French and American elections.
First of all, they have 12 established parties. Secondly, 85% of the eligible voters voted in the primary. There are other differences, too, that are in sharp contrast to American politics. Campaign funding is much smaller, and the campaign itself is much shorter. There is no electioneering on Saturday, one day before the elections, which gives everybody a rest and lessens the chance for last-minute scams and polling.
Ségolène Royal is interesting...this from Huffington Post...Ségo, who garnered 25.8% in yesterday's vote, is a 53-year old mother of four who lives with, but is not married to, the man who is their father. (This does not shock the French.) She is very attractive, very charming, and almost maternalistic in her approach. She says she wants for France what she would want for her children: protection, security, respect, She rails against the inured bastions of "power and wealth", and the deficiencies in the justice system, the media, the government, and the public service sector. She would raise the minimum wage, preserve worker safeguards, and subsidize youth jobs. In her victory speech last night, she promised to restore pride in French history and values, to "reverse the decline" by giving up a system "that no longer works", and to "make our country smile again".
She seems a stark contrast from the frontrunner female in America, Hilary Clinton.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
She seems a stark contrast from the frontrunner female in America, Hilary Clinton.
Well, they are both socialists. So they have that in common. [;)]
First of all, to clarify, it was not a primary as we think of it. It was an election between all the candidates like we have here. However, unlike the U.S. they have a runoff if one candidate does not get a majority vote. Describing the weeks election as a primary would mislead many people.
Second, France had 6 parties that drew a significant number of votes and has 12 recognized parties. The United States has at least that many recognized parties (Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Green, Libertarian, Republican Democrat, crazy whatever...) recognized at different levels but only TWO at the national level.
Oklahoma, by the way, was the only state in the Union to only have two choices in the last presidential campaign. It saddens me to think that was the two best people our country could muster.
She won't make it past May 6th.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Ségolène Royal is interesting...this from Huffington Post...Ségo, who garnered 25.8% in yesterday's vote, is a 53-year old mother of four who lives with, but is not married to, the man who is their father. (This does not shock the French.) She is very attractive, very charming, and almost maternalistic in her approach. She says she wants for France what she would want for her children: protection, security, respect, She rails against the inured bastions of "power and wealth", and the deficiencies in the justice system, the media, the government, and the public service sector. She would raise the minimum wage, preserve worker safeguards, and subsidize youth jobs. In her victory speech last night, she promised to restore pride in French history and values, to "reverse the decline" by giving up a system "that no longer works", and to "make our country smile again".
Arianna ought to stick to commentary on French politics.
Sego's a hottie for 53.
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7448/060708112834pbblm1s50segolnero.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The presidential election is France is conducted as follows:
Candidates win their parties nomination.
6-10 candidates are presented in an open election.
Lacking a majority, the top 2 have a run off.
Here is the problem. The top two candidates are almost always more extreme than many of the losers. This year, a Conservative and Socialist won leaving far right, far left, and centrists behind.
Specifically, the most central candidate who tested highest in the polls for favorability got 18.5% of the vote. The Socialist posted 25.7% and the Conservative 37.1%. In a runoff between either the conservative or the socialist and the centrist, the centrist would win with at least 60% of the vote. However, the political system that enforces a two party runoff favors candidates that take non-centrist positions and are able to polarize the vote.
Thus, without the ability to vote for a center candidate many will simply not vote. The turnout for the general election was nearly 85%, only 70% is expected for the runoff. Also, the roughly 50% of the vote that goes the other way in this election will be left with a candidate reflecting the opposite of the views.
Thus, you end up with 65% of the population unhappy with the outcome. In fact, a full 35% could be enraged by it and the other 30% unhappy with either candidate.
This system will nearly never result in a centrist candidate and will always result in a large number of people being governed by a political opposite.
Is this better or worse than our 2 party system? I just cant tell for sure, but Im thinking even this cluster is better than ours.
I'm sorry to disagree, but if you actually look at the results you realise that the three most central parties were in the top three.
Olivier Besancenot Revolutionary Communist League (Ligue communiste révolutionnaire) 1,498,835 4.08%
Marie-George Buffet Parti communiste français 707,327 1.93%
Gérard Schivardi Workers' Party (Parti des travailleurs) 123,711 0.34%
François Bayrou Union for French Democracy (Union pour la démocratie française) 6,820,914 18.57%
José Bové Alter-globalization activist 483,076 1.32%
Dominique Voynet The Greens (Les Verts) 576,758 1.57%
Philippe de Villiers Movement for France (Mouvement pour la France) 818,704 2.23%
Ségolène Royal Socialist Party (Parti socialiste) 9,501,295 25.87%
Frédéric Nihous Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition (Chasse, pêche, nature, traditions) 420,775 1.15%
Jean-Marie Le Pen National Front (Front national) 3,835,029 10.44%
Arlette Laguiller Workers' Struggle (Lutte ouvrière) 488,119 1.33%
Nicolas Sarkozy Union for a Popular Movement (Union pour un mouvement populaire) 11,450,302 31.18%
There were four communist/ hard core socialist, anti globalisation activist, an independent loony farmer, green party and fascist making up the rest of the field. I would say therefore that you are wrong in saying that the system favours non central candidates when the three front runners were running on the most central platform.
I think the French system can be a little confusing. Typically candidates in the first round campaign for their base, which is why you think there is room for a middle of the road candidate. However in the second round the candidates have to appeal to 50%+, therefore they rush politically to the centre to pick up the floating voters. I would also say that the third central party did fairly well. In most systems with multi parties be they under proportional or first past the post elector systems there is normally a battle of centre right vs centre left. I think it says something more about the appeal of middle of the road politics rather than the French electoral system.
It's not the best, neither the worst system out there.
Those are some interesting parties, like the hunting, fishing, and nature one.
Don't they have a "surrender party"?[8D]
Don't you think our system works better where the court will not let the votes be counted?
When less than 20% vote in most elections?
The court orders a new election when there could be racial implications?
When an unknown spend over a million dollars to be elected mayor?
Where the mayor daughter is treated like everyone for traffic offence and DWI? [morning papers advises us several times in article]
France has endured their electoral form since Jefferson helped Bonaparte over throw the house of Bourbon.
The best system available in today's society is where the polls are open until 50+1% have voted.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Where the mayor daughter is treated like everyone for traffic offence and DWI? [morning papers advises us several times in article]
I don't follow you here, are you saying that's bad or good?
She should be treated just like everyone else.
Are you called Shadow because that's all that is left? A Shadow of a rational being capable of thought.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Don't you think our system works better where the court will not let the votes be counted?
The vote was counted some 3 or 4 times. In fact, after the election was done more than 3 independent organizations counted the votes and your hated GW won every time. So yes, the court should not allow the vote counting to go on and on and on and on and on forever. It HAS to stop sometime. You really dont get this?
quote:
When less than 20% vote in most elections?
Here is a link to Voter Turnout data since 1980 for all federal elections.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout%201980-2006.xls
Find one that is less than 20%. There isnt one.
You spout out random data and it is more often than not wrong. Actually, I think its ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. Stop acting like an idiot.
quote:
The court orders a new election when there could be racial implications?
Show me an example. The only instances I know of that this happened is in the South where the courts found that black people were being forcibly denied the right to vote. Am I to understand that you are in favor of allowing armed mobs stop sectors of our society to vote?
If so, you are even more backwards than I thought. Lets get a mob together and stop all Jews from voting - sound good to you?
[quote[
When an unknown spend over a million dollars to be elected mayor?
Do you want to talk about campaign financing at the local level or just want to complain? Are you upset that she has money, she was unknown, she's a Gentile, or that she's a woman? I know you hate Gentiles, women and people with money... I didnt know you hated unknowns. Man, you must really hate her now.
What your damn point here?
quote:
Where the mayor daughter is treated like everyone for traffic offence and DWI? [morning papers advises us several times in article]
Again, this is a problem? I thought you hated the unknown who spent millions to get elected. Great, now Im confused.
quote:
France has endured their electoral form since Jefferson helped Bonaparte over throw the house of Bourbon.
Jefferson hated Bonaparte and considered him a tyrant ignorant of philosophy, economics, and the freedoms of men. Here are some quotes:
ALL BY THOMAS JEFFERSON:
- We neither expected, nor wished any act of friendship from Bonaparte, and always detested him as a tyrant.
- That Bonaparte is an unprincipled tyrant, who is deluging the continent of Europe with blood, there is not a human being, not even the wife of his bosom who does not see.
- No man on earth has stronger detestation than myself of the unprincipled tyrant who is deluging the continent of Europe with blood. No one was more gratified by his disasters of the last campaign.
- A ruthless tyrant, drenching Europe in blood to obtain through future time the character of the destroyer of mankind.
- [He is but a] A conqueror roaming over the earth with havoc and destruction.
- I have grieved to see even good republicans so infatuated as to this man, as to consider his downfall as calamitous to the cause of liberty. In their indignation against England which is just, they seem to consider all her enemies as our friends, when it is well known there was not a being on earth who bore us so deadly a hatred. To whine after this exorcised demon is a disgrace to republicans, and must have arisen either from want of reflection, or the indulgence of passion against principle.
Wow, that really looks like Jefferson was a big fan of Napoleon and helped him out where ever he could. Unless you meant Jefferson Davis, who was 6 when Napoleon was last ousted - then you just be wrong.
quote:
The best system available in today's society is where the polls are open until 50+1% have voted.
[/quote]
We close them after 51% have voted? That just seems wrong.
Or do we keep them open until at least 51% have voted and then longer if we want?
I would think a full day is long enough for anyone who wants to vote to do so. If you dont want to vote and chose not to, good for you - it makes my vote stronger. Why encourage people that are ignorant of the facts and ambivalent to the outcome to participate?
The actual outcome of this forced voting would be a wash anyway. People that dont care would vote randomly and have no real effects on the outcome. If this is your desire, lets allow chickens to vote too - it will be just as random and have no effects, but the turnout numbers would be really high.
You're a fool. I want the 2 minutes it took me to write this back.
CP explodes:
You're a fool. I want the 2 minutes it took me to write this back.
____________________________________________
If it took you 2 minutes to write that, when you are able to spend ten minutes on learning you might look up the facts on Jefferson, Sally, Slave merchant and Democracy .
Check the DNA lines.
Like all the other boards the operators of this board seem to become disinterested which shows the dissolution that soon this board will also go silent. Your anger is grossly exaggerated in your attempting to limit discussion. There have been other keepers of the chronicles that do no coincide with yours. In your displaying of such anger does the face turn red also?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
CP explodes:
You're a fool. I want the 2 minutes it took me to write this back.
____________________________________________
If it took you 2 minutes to write that, when you are able to spend ten minutes on learning you might look up the facts on Jefferson, Sally, Slave merchant and Democracy .
Check the DNA lines.
Like all the other boards the operators of this board seem to become disinterested which shows the dissolution that soon this board will also go silent. Your anger is grossly exaggerated in your attempting to limit discussion. There have been other keepers of the chronicles that do no coincide with yours. In your displaying of such anger does the face turn red also?
Again. Why don't you explain WHY he's wrong instead of claiming you're right and telling him to do more research. He proffered six paragraphs of information backing up his assertion. You can feel free to explain to us why he's incorrect, but until you do that we're free to operate under the same perception of you that we've always had.
A cute quote from the French campaign:
"I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.," Ms. Royal said on France 2 television.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
A cute quote from the French campaign:
"I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.," Ms. Royal said on France 2 television.
Without the U.S. there wouldn't be a France today. Bet she'll have a different tune the next time France gets into hot water.
Won't be long with the unrest in the muslim community. How do you like your Le Car done? I prefer mine medium well.
(http://static.flickr.com/39/79593812_5cfc57119d.jpg?v=0)
What is that? The smoker at Stone Mill?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
A cute quote from the French campaign:
"I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.," Ms. Royal said on France 2 television.
Without the U.S. there wouldn't be a France today. Bet she'll have a different tune the next time France gets into hot water.
Without France, there might not be an United States of America today.
Shadows:
You are correct. Jefferson was a slave owner and a philanderer. The DNA proves that he slept with African's who were likely his slaves. I dont think I ever argued against that.
However, that has nothing to do with his support of Napoleon. Nor does it have anything to do with the election results of 2000, racial sensitivity by the courts, the treatment of the mayors daughter, nor the topic of this thread: election systems.
I have to ask, what made you bring that up? What train of thought led you to post about Thomas Jefferson's sexual relations with his slaves in a thread about election systems?
also, if there is some alternate history that my education has neglected to inform me of, please let me know. If Jefferson hated Napoleon in public and secretly loved him and supported him, tell me how he did so and how you know this. The constant avoidance of issues and change of topics coupled with a complete lack of evidence makes me think you just spout off random quips and make up tidbits.
And to answer your question, regardless of your refusal to answer any of mine; no, my face does not get red as I am not terribly upset by any of this.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Won't be long with the unrest in the muslim community. How do you like your Le Car done? I prefer mine medium well.
(http://static.flickr.com/39/79593812_5cfc57119d.jpg?v=0)
I prefer mine blackened....Renault.....What p.o.s.....
(http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/patriotic-pictures/dirty-rotten-scoudrels.jpg)
(http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/patriotic-pictures/soldier-of-surrender.jpg)
(http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/patriotic-pictures/french-army-knife.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Without France, there might not be an United States of America today.
Oh yeah, They gave us cheese
In all honesty, si_uk_lon_ok does have a very good point. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity were the product of French philosophers long before the French Revolution brought them to the forefront. Many of the founders read and greatly admired many French thinkers and cited their work frequently.
It also should not be lost that the French entered the American War of Independence and helped end the conflict. Granted, they waited on the sidelines until we proved the possibility of victory and they had their own imperial and political reasons for the war, but nonetheless they helped us (and furthermore, the same could be said about the US in WWI and WWII to some extent). An imperial fleet was not something the US could deal with or muster.
French society is certainly open to much criticism and I strongly disagree with many of their political mainstays. However, there are things to be admired about their lifestyle, attitudes, and history. That's not to say they arent open to a good bit of jarring on being cheese eating surrender monkeys.
See the following Google:
French Military Victories (//%22http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html%22)
(and dont forget to click on the sub link on the page, damn funny)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
In all honesty, si_uk_lon_ok does have a very good point. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity were the product of French philosophers long before the French Revolution brought them to the forefront. Many of the founders read and greatly admired many French thinkers and cited their work frequently.
It also should not be lost that the French entered the American War of Independence and helped end the conflict. Granted, they waited on the sidelines until we proved the possibility of victory and they had their own imperial and political reasons for the war, but nonetheless they helped us (and furthermore, the same could be said about the US in WWI and WWII to some extent). An imperial fleet was not something the US could deal with or muster.
French society is certainly open to much criticism and I strongly disagree with many of their political mainstays. However, there are things to be admired about their lifestyle, attitudes, and history. That's not to say they arent open to a good bit of jarring on being cheese eating surrender monkeys.
See the following Google:
French Military Victories (//%22http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html%22)
(and dont forget to click on the sub link on the page, damn funny)
Agreed, But not to say that the Colonies would not have been sucessful without them. Our liberation of France in 2 wars certainly was payback enough for that. Since that time they (France) has turned their back on their great friend the US. Now for some unknown reason they seem to hate us. Some ally. The United States continues to support these countries in spite of that hatered. I say to hell with the cheese eating A** wipes.
"That's not to say they arent open to a good bit of jarring on being cheese eating surrender monkeys.
See the following Google:
French Military Victories"
I love a good parody.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
"That's not to say they arent open to a good bit of jarring on being cheese eating surrender monkeys.
See the following Google:
French Military Victories"
I love a good parody.
french military victoriesYour search - french military victories - did not match any documents.
[:D][:D][:D]
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
In all honesty, si_uk_lon_ok does have a very good point. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity were the product of French philosophers long before the French Revolution brought them to the forefront. Many of the founders read and greatly admired many French thinkers and cited their work frequently.
It also should not be lost that the French entered the American War of Independence and helped end the conflict. Granted, they waited on the sidelines until we proved the possibility of victory and they had their own imperial and political reasons for the war, but nonetheless they helped us (and furthermore, the same could be said about the US in WWI and WWII to some extent). An imperial fleet was not something the US could deal with or muster.
French society is certainly open to much criticism and I strongly disagree with many of their political mainstays. However, there are things to be admired about their lifestyle, attitudes, and history. That's not to say they arent open to a good bit of jarring on being cheese eating surrender monkeys.
See the following Google:
French Military Victories (//%22http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html%22)
(and dont forget to click on the sub link on the page, damn funny)
Agreed, But not to say that the Colonies would not have been sucessful without them.
I think the chance of the colonies being successful would have been considerably lower without the French intervention. Casualties would have been higher and failure a very real possibility
quote:
I think the chance of the colonies being successful would have been considerably lower without the French intervention.
Our liberation of France in 2 wars certainly was payback enough for that.
Liberating France was not 'payback'. Defeating Nazism was doing the right thing, to do nothing would have been morally reprehensible. Stop acting like doing the right thing is something that deserves the international relations equivalent of a cookie.
quote:
Since that time they (France) has turned their back on their great friend the US. Now for some unknown reason they seem to hate us. Some ally. The United States continues to support these countries in spite of that hatered. I say to hell with the cheese eating A** wipes.
I take it you never saw the Le Monde front page on September the 12th 2001? France has not turned its back on the USA, the USA has turned its back on France. I'm not arguing that France and the USA don't have differences, but that is France's right as an independent country. France wasn't the country that renamed its fries, boycotted goods and I'm not seeing French election candidates criticized for looking too American. The USA hates France, France may dislike the USA on occasion but that is due to people in America insulting it and it is in no way in the proportion that the USA hates France. Look at what you guys are writing about France. Have you ever been or met a French person?
yes, I know and work with a good many French people. Everyone of them ar arrogant and rude. They do hate the US. If not for the United States they would all be speaking German today.
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
If not for the United States they would all be speaking German today.
Have an international relations cookie.
Well thanks for not being arrogant and taking all the glory of WW2. I forgot it was only the USA, there is me reading books when I should have been watching saving private ryan.
By the way if it wasn't for the French, the United States would still be speaking English.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Liberating France was not 'payback'. Defeating Nazism was doing the right thing, to do nothing would have been morally reprehensible. Stop acting like doing the right thing is something that deserves the international relations equivalent of a cookie.
Not personally skewering your opinions, just borrowing your quote, si to create a rhetorical question.
If defeating Nazism, then communism was important, isn't defeating fundamentalist Islamic terrorism at its roots?
quote:
The USA hates France
Everyone hates the French. Trust me, that's from years of travel experience in Europe.
I thought everyone hated the Italians? A Travel Society survey found them to be the worlds most hated tourist - though outright hatred for Americans was higher for some reason they make worse national guests.
A French friend of mine says that everyone hates the Germans (Germans have more $$$ than the French and make sure the French know it when they come to visit).
and as my relatives in Budapest are telling it, Eastern Europeans are really degraded by 'civilized' Europe (relatives work in Budapest, not native).
Man, there's a lot of hate on that continent. In the United States we most recently have limited our hate to blacks, hispanics, or whites and/or jews, fundamentalist or fringe religions. Well, except me, I hate agnostic Asian Canadians - just to be different.
Well, I'm not too fond of the Amish, so go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Liberating France was not 'payback'. Defeating Nazism was doing the right thing, to do nothing would have been morally reprehensible. Stop acting like doing the right thing is something that deserves the international relations equivalent of a cookie.
Not personally skewering your opinions, just borrowing your quote, si to create a rhetorical question.
If defeating Nazism, then communism was important, isn't defeating fundamentalist Islamic terrorism at its roots?
And what does this have to do with the French electoral system? [:P]
If you want to go down that route I think you should start a new thread. This one has already diverged far enough from the original issue. (not that I didn't have anything to do with it)
Wow...
The French people have pulled their collective heads out and are finally breathing fresh air for the first time in a decade or so...
First of all, 85% turnout is amazing. It might have something to do with no one having to work, but still.
Second, I understand they elected the 'conservative candidate.' However, that is a subjective classification. I really dont know anything about his policies... anyone know?
I sure am going to miss this though:
(http://www.lardeau.net/images/montage-segolene-royal-nue.PNG)
" Sarkozy's programme includes the abolition of tax on overtime, big cuts in inheritance tax, a law guaranteeing minimum service in transport strikes, and rules to oblige the unemployed to take up offered work."
Hell, I might vote for him.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070507102442.ylgq09dm&show_article=1
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
yes, I know and work with a good many French people. Everyone of them ar arrogant and rude. They do hate the US. If not for the United States they would all be speaking German today.
The French would probably be rude and arrogant regardless, and they hate everyone, not just the US. But I concede the point.
I'm pround of the French because they had over an 80% turnout at the polls. We could learn a thing or two about taking part in Democracy from that example.
Additionally, I heard on NPR that in the French Presidential election, you can turn in a blank ballot as a protest vote against both candidates! LOL, I would have done that in the last election here if I had the chance. Kerry and Bush were both terrible choices.
Blank ballots would be a good addition, the problem would be the ease with which someone else could fill them in.
Turnout is high because it is a national holiday. As I understand it, no one really has to work (in France, ever.) [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
" Sarkozy's programme includes the abolition of tax on overtime, big cuts in inheritance tax, a law guaranteeing minimum service in transport strikes, and rules to oblige the unemployed to take up offered work."
Hell, I might vote for him.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070507102442.ylgq09dm&show_article=1
I hardly count that as radical when you consider where France is starting from.
I think it wrong to imagine a conservative candidate as a republican in almost all European nations apart from Poland and Italy (and maybe a few others) the whole system is skewed to the left to the extent that there are no real republican equivalents. For instance, I don't think many UK conservatives would count as that in the US for instance.