Support NeoGAF

[Palette Swap]

First round.

And yeah I wouldn't be surprised if Fillon came back in the race, considering there's no other alternative for regular right voters. Now that any kind of "plan B" seems excluded, he's back as the only candidate for them.
It also explains the lower vote intentions this year, there's no strong and popular candidate in the race.

My understanding is that Sarkozists are getting a handle on things. They tried to push Fillon out and failed, so now they're coopting the campaign and going all in. They've been signaling all over the media how they're part of this and how they will shift Fillon's platform to make it more palatable to lower/middle classes. Honestly, with such a shift, and even if Fillon's character is severely damaged, I wouldn't write LR off.

I don't like Sarkozy and his cronies very much, but he's demonstrated an ability to manage a party and crises that Fillon entirely lacks.

I'm still laughing whenever I hear someone mention how Baroin is young and the future of the party. The guy is 51 FFS.

 

[Magni]

Latest numbers show ~32% of voters thinking of abstaining from the first round.

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/art...asculer-la-presidentielle_5091960_823448.html

Depuis 1974, l'abstention tourne autour de 20 %. Parfois un peu au-dessus comme en 1995 ou 2012, parfois un peu au-dessous comme en 1974, 1981, 1988, ou 2007. La seule exception est l'élection présidentielle de 2002 qui, avec une abstention de 29 %, se rapproche des tendances de 2017.

The only way the FN gets in is if people don't show up. It's the only reason they got in in 2002.

Side note: who are the ~14% of centrists who are thinking of sitting this one out? I get that Macron isn't perfect, but FFS this is your best chance to get a ni gauche ni droite candidate in since forever (feels like a much better chance than 2007 at the very least).

 

[sbkodama]

You can usually find the full description of the procedure at the source, but most people just quickly watch the summary.
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_08-03-2017.pdf

Expectations of participation are currently at 65%, it would be a historical low. :/

Do you really think around 1000 person can represent around 60000 ? these surveys are just joke.

 

[Alx]

That's how sampling works. And it's not just 1500 persons for a single poll, it's 500 persons a day, with each daily poll being an agregate of the last three days. So in the end over the whole rolling poll you'll have used several thousands of people.
In the end a relatively small sample with good methodology is much more reliable than a huge sampling, where it's harder to guarantee it's representative. And you can see from the consistency in the trends that it's not so random.

 

[Souldriver]

Latest numbers show ~32% of voters thinking of abstaining from the first round.

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/art...asculer-la-presidentielle_5091960_823448.html



The only way the FN gets in is if people don't show up. It's the only reason they got in in 2002.

Side note: who are the ~14% of centrists who are thinking of sitting this one out? I get that Macron isn't perfect, but FFS this is your best chance to get a ni gauche ni droite candidate in since forever (feels like a much better chance than 2007 at the very least).

This is the shit that will make me say "France deserves Le Pen".

It should be obvious by now for all moderates to be energized and go vote to prevent catastrophe. But instead we've got a whole bunch of apathetics fuckers who'd rather just react to a facebook post about the elections than actually go vote themselves, or even worse, sardonic assholes who say shit like "wouldn't it be hilarious if Trump got elected haha".*

That last thing happened at a friends gathering of mine in october last year. Never have I reacted so strongly while seemingly unprovoked. It was awkward. But it made me think less of my friends. They'd also be the first ones to complain when the "joke" turns sour, not realizing the irony of it all.

GO VOTE people. France does not deserve Le Pen.

 

[G.O.O.]

Do you really think around 1000 person can represent around 60000 ? these surveys are just joke.

1000 can do a better job at representing France than 1000000, depending on how they're picked.

 

[BetterWorldz]

This is the shit that will make me say "France deserves Le Pen".

It should be obvious by now for all moderates to be energized and go vote to prevent catastrophe. But instead we've got a whole bunch of apathetics fuckers who'd rather just react to a facebook post about the elections than actually go vote themselves, or even worse, sardonic assholes who say shit like "wouldn't it be hilarious if Trump got elected haha".*

That last thing happened at a friends gathering of mine in october last year. Never have I reacted so strongly while seemingly unprovoked. It was awkward. But it made me think less of my friends. They'd also be the first ones to complain when the "joke" turns sour, not realizing the irony of it all.

GO VOTE people. France does not deserve Le Pen.

Totally get where you're coming from, I've had similar experiences, it's infuriating.

As far as I'm concerned democracy is endangered by people who just take it for granted, and I strongly believe voting should become mandatory as soon as possible, with white votes accounted for in the results. Just use the fines from non-voters to finance political education programs, they're badly needed.

 

[MoodyFog]

Totally get where you're coming from, I've had similar experiences, it's infuriating.

As far as I'm concerned democracy is endangered by people who just take it for granted, and I strongly believe voting should become mandatory as soon as possible, with white votes accounted for in the results. Just use the fines from non-voters to finance political education programs, they're badly needed.

Making something mandatory is a strange take on democracy..

 

[Funky Papa]

Making something mandatory is a strange take on democracy..

It really isn't (see: Australia). One could easily frame it as part of the social contract.

 

[BetterWorldz]

Making something mandatory is a strange take on democracy..

Is it though? In our system there is a responsibility that falls on the people to select its representatives. Enforcing that responsibility when society is at risk seems to make perfect sense to me.

I think the political philosophy that is incompatible with any form of obligation is called anarchy, not democracy.

 

[sbkodama]

1000 can do a better job at representing France than 1000000, depending on how they're picked.

Sur, depending on how they're picked.

especially when "ces quotas ont été définis à partir des données de l’INSEE pour la population française âgée de 18 ans et plus résidant en métropole (EE-INSEE 2014)."
So dom tom don't count ? what next ?

 

[Alx]

I'm not against the idea of making voting mandatory, but I'm not sure it would solve anything. All you will get in the end is to make people who don't know or don't care go in a booth and cast their vote, but it won't necessarily change the current situation for the better.
Best case scenario, such uninvolved citizens will cast their vote randomly in an even distribution, and you'd get the same results with or without them. More realistic scenario, they'd be biased towards the more vocal, mediatic or "lol inducing" candidate, and that's how you end up with a reality TV host as a president.
Non voters aren't the disease, they're the symptom. The issue is people not feeling involved in politics, or not trusting them. Mandatory vote may push some of them to get more informed, but for most it will just be an inconvenience.

So dom tom don't count ? what next ?

Statistically, not much (4% of the population). And polls are all about statistics. It does add a small bias to the polling, but probably one that was deemed acceptable in exchange of convenience.

 

[FDC1]

Making something mandatory is a strange take on democracy..

That's what we call "laws". Pretty sure every democracy has some you know...

 

[G.O.O.]

Totally get where you're coming from, I've had similar experiences, it's infuriating.

As far as I'm concerned democracy is endangered by people who just take it for granted, and I strongly believe voting should become mandatory as soon as possible, with white votes accounted for in the results. Just use the fines from non-voters to finance political education programs, they're badly needed.

The voting system could also be improved

 

[BetterWorldz]

I'm not against the idea of making voting mandatory, but I'm not sure it would solve anything. All you will get in the end is to make people who don't know or don't care go in a booth and cast their vote, but it won't necessarily change the current situation for the better.
Best case scenario, such uninvolved citizens will cast their vote randomly in an even distribution, and you'd get the same results with or without them. More realistic scenario, they'd be biased towards the more vocal, mediatic or "lol inducing" candidate, and that's how you end up with a reality TV host as a president.
Non voters aren't the disease, they're the symptom. The issue is people not feeling involved in politics, or not trusting them. Mandatory vote may push some of them to get more informed, but for most it will just be an inconvenience.

You may be right, who knows at this point, but I have hope that a massive amount of white votes that are accounted for in the final percentage would change the dynamic and give incentive to political figures to reach out more to dispassionate voters, so that they feel represented by them.

That being said the risk of demagoguery you rightfully pointed out probably is a weakness of the entire system, unfortunately, mandatory vote or no.

Still, electoral catastrophes tend to thrive on the absence of votes, and I do have faith that given the choice, on average, the people will make the better decision for itself.

 

[MoodyFog]

That's what we call "laws". Pretty sure every democracy has some you know...

That's what we call "condescending idiots". Pretty sure every board has some you know...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It really isn't (see: Australia). One could easily frame it as part of the social contract.

Australia's democracy doesn't provide a meaningfully different outcome to any other democracy, though. Generally speaking, there are three reasons why someone wouldn't vote: they don't feel sufficiently informed to cast a purposeful choice, they are indifferent between the leading choices, or they want to protest the system. If you make these voters turn up, the first and second will just vote randomly or for the person at the top of the list (being first on the Australian ballot gives you a surprisingly significant advantage), and the third will just draw a penis on the ballot, or, if they feel especially strongly, just keep taking fines, which seems rather difficult to justify.

They might be voting in the technical sense of they drew an X on a ballot somewhere, but they're not doing the part of voting that actually matters: studying the candidates and their policies, making a decision based on their values, and casting a meaningful vote. If you want to increase that, mandatory voting is a waste of time. You'd have more luck implementing a PR system that means every vote has an impact, or empowering the legislature over the executive, both measures that are correlated with higher turnout in Western democracies with good causal explanations as to why.

En outre, la liberté de choisir doit inclure la liberté de ne pas choisir.

 

[Sinsem]

En outre, la liberté de choisir doit inclure la liberté de ne pas choisir.

That's why, with mandatory vote, you should also recognize someone choosing "None of the above". Mandatory vote alone is obviously useless, if not dangerous.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's why, with mandatory vote, you should also recognize someone choosing "None of the above". Mandatory vote alone is obviously useless, if not dangerous.

Why even bother having mandatory vote if you have a none-of-the-above option?

 

[Sinsem]

Why even bother having mandatory vote if you have a none-of-the-above option?

Because if none of the above wins, then all the candidates are rejected.
Or another system. I'm not a specialist but there are a lot of ways to handle this kind of situation, a lot of people wrote aboute that and tested various systems.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because if none of the above wins, then all the candidates are rejected.
Or another system. I'm not a specialist but there are a lot of ways to handle this kind of situation, a lot of people wrote aboute that and tested various systems.

Most Polsci papers I know on the topic think that mandatory voting has no real impact on who is likely to win elections nor any wider effects like greater faith in political institutions or greater approval of political outcomes. People don't vote for a number of reasons - they don't know, they don't care, they don't want to. Mandatory voting doesn't address any of those reasons - people still don't know, they still don't care, they still don't want to.

There are much better ways of encouraging civic participation. For example, if you're a Hamon voter - why would you bother turning up? As long as Melenchon is in the race, Hamon will never make it to the second round. Your vote is functionally worthless; may as well stay at home and have a lie-in that day for all the impact you'd have. There's a well-known correlation between the likelihood of any given individual vote determining the outcome of the election and the participation in that election. France's two-round system is incredibly poor at making votes impactful. So why not start there?

 

[Alx]

Because if none of the above wins, then all the candidates are rejected.

The only thing that would achieve would be weakening democracy by creating the possibility of stalling the institutions.
Elections are a procedure to select a leader, if you reach the decision "nobody wins" then it's a failure of the system, not a success.

 

[danthefan]

Do you really think around 1000 person can represent around 60000 ? these surveys are just joke.

Yes, it can in the majority of cases. Learn some stats.

 

[Sinsem]

The only thing that would achieve would be weakening democracy by creating the possibility of stalling the institutions.

You'd need half of the voters for that. I don't see it happening so often.

 

[Alx]

You'd need half of the voters for that. I don't see it happening so often.

You'd actually need less than that. If it's a second round choice, A/B/None, then you'd only need one third of the voters. Which is actually close to the current non-voters estimation this year.
For a first round as it is projected now, you'd need one fourth of the votes for it to reach first place, which is achievable even with the usually strong participation. And if "None" is first, either you cancel everything, or ignore it altogether.

 

[BetterWorldz]

The only thing that would achieve would be weakening democracy by creating the possibility of stalling the institutions.
Elections are a procedure to select a leader, if you reach the decision "nobody wins" then it's a failure of the system, not a success.

Well first of all the rise of extreme-right leaders thanks to a growing number of non-voters could actually be fatal to democracy, so there's that.

To your point, yes, ABSOLUTELY the option of stalling the institutions should be on the table. It may not be practical to expect over 50% active votes in the second round under these rules, and people should be made very, very well-aware of the consequences of switching to a caretaker government until further elections, but if the population cannot find someone to represent them, I think it absolutely should be perceived as a constitutional crisis.

More than ever people are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, which means that more than ever we're at risk of getting the greater of two evils. In a Fillon/Le Pen duel, I'd rather have a do-over than let a super energized extreme-right minority of voters cause the downfall of the country. Wouldn't you?

Australia continues to elect the Center-Right/ Right Wing "Liberals" over and over

I'd take that over Trump and Le Pen.

 

[gutter_trash]

Mandatory voting does nothing to inform the uninformed or disinterested.

They would randomly pick a candidate with the best photo or best slogan.

Forcing the uninformed or the uninterested could lead to a shitty outcome.

Australia continues to elect the Center-Right/ Right Wing "Liberals" over and over

 

[UnluckyKate]

It really isn't (see: Australia). One could easily frame it as part of the social contract.

If paying taxes is mandatory then I don't see why voting could not be if they made the blank vote worth something.

I wish we didn't had 30% people not voting every election.

 

[Alx]

More than ever people are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Again with that rejection of "lesser of two evils". Choosing the candidate you dislike less is the most common thing in democracy. Look at the current split of votes for the first round : the first two candidates don't reach 50% added together. Which means that more than half of the population (those who support one of the other candidates) will have to vote for someone they don't really support.
That's just how it works : unless there is an exceptional popularity of a candidate, most voters will have to accept a compromise when choosing a leader. And no, "nobody wins" is not an option, since all it does is postpone the decision. "Oh well it didn't work, maybe if we try again in 6 months things will be different ?"

 

[BetterWorldz]

Again with that rejection of "lesser of two evils". Choosing the candidate you dislike less is the most common thing in democracy.

Hey don't get me wrong, I'll be there every election to vote against the worst possible outcome. But just because you and I agree on that doesn't mean we should ignore the current electoral reality, that more and more people cannot be bothered to go vote against fascism anymore, and thus may need a little incentive to do so before, you know, we lose everything?

And no, "nobody wins" is not an option, since all it does is postpone the decision. "Oh well it didn't work, maybe if we try again in 6 months things will be different ?"

Or maybe six months later a couple politicians could have a breakthrough and understand the only way they'll get elected is if voters feel represented by them a tiny bit more. Crazy thought, I know.

 

[phisheep]

Most Polsci papers I know on the topic think that mandatory voting has no real impact on who is likely to win elections nor any wider effects like greater faith in political institutions or greater approval of political outcomes. People don't vote for a number of reasons - they don't know, they don't care, they don't want to. Mandatory voting doesn't address any of those reasons - people still don't know, they still don't care, they still don't want to.

Mandatory voting does nothing to inform the uninformed or disinterested.

They would randomly pick a candidate with the best photo or best slogan.

Forcing the uninformed or the uninterested could lead to a shitty outcome.

I think you both have it wrong about mandatory voting.

At present it is a fairly symmetrical situation - a load of voters who don't vote, and a load of politicians who don't care about those who don't vote because there's no votes in it.

I'd expect the more immediate impact of mandatory voting would not be a better electorate, but that it might have an impact on the policies that politicians propose in order to attract that electorate that is going to be in the actual ballot box.

 

[Palette Swap]

Just saw the story about LR's antisemitic tweet and their "sorry you were offended" apology, fuck that party.

 

[Yen]

Just saw the story about LR's antisemitic tweet and their "sorry you were offended" apology, fuck that party.

Blimey

 

[Alx]

I don't even understand the sickle part in the caricature. Are they implying he's some kind of communist banker ? Also, what year is this ?

 

[G.O.O.]

I don't even understand the sickle part in the caricature. Are they implying he's some kind of communist banker ? Also, what year is this ?

Socialism, soviet tanks on the champs-élysées, stuff like that

Also communist bankers with a top hat and a hooked nose are a very specific stereotype

 

[Holden]

a communist banker, well.... that's new i guess

 

[Ether_Snake]

That cartoon will probably boost his numbers. "Communist? Oh not bad then."

 

[G.O.O.]

That cartoon will probably boost his numbers. "Communist? Oh not bad then."

That might have been true a few decades ago. Communism is hard to sell in France nowadays.

 

[The Lamp]

Could someone please briefly explain to me how this is going? Is the conservative, Trum-like movement winning or are pro-EU, liberal ideologies doing okay?

 

[mo60]

Could someone please briefly explain to me how this is going? Is the conservative, Trum-like movement winning or are pro-EU, liberal ideologies doing okay?

They will do well in the first round and get obliterated in the second most likely.

 

[G.O.O.]

Could someone please briefly explain to me how this is going? Is the conservative, Trum-like movement winning or are pro-EU, liberal ideologies doing okay?

Things are looking good for now. Both poll at the same level on first round, well above the rest, and the trumpists have a 30 point deficit to overcome on the second.

 

[G.O.O.]

Oh look, an analysis on why Macron will collapse and miss the second round

https://politbistro.hypotheses.org/4449

Not sure of what I should make of it

 

[Ac30]

Oh look, an analysis on why Macron will collapse and miss the second round

https://politbistro.hypotheses.org/4449

Not sure of what I should make of it

EDIT Whoops nvm

 

[sbkodama]

So nobody can tell about the coefficient which depend of past election used in polls ?

 

[whyamihere]

Oh look, an analysis on why Macron will collapse and miss the second round

https://politbistro.hypotheses.org/4449

Not sure of what I should make of it

It's silly, though I think it's possible that partisanship will end up drawing some LR voters back. He's at 19%-20% and hasn't really budged recently.

 

[mo60]

Oh look, an analysis on why Macron will collapse and miss the second round

https://politbistro.hypotheses.org/4449

Not sure of what I should make of it

How many times have people said that Macron will collapse and he hasn't yet? I don't think fillon will ever recover. He's damaged goods. He maybe had a chance of recovering in early feburary but it's ridiculously hard for Fillon to revive his campaign now especially since LR is getting really desperate to take down Macron right now and fillon still has that March 15th summoning that will haunt his campaign.

 

[G.O.O.]

How did Balladur poll in 1995 anyway ? Also didn't pollsters change their methods after their collective failure in 2002 ?

 

[Palette Swap]

How did Balladur poll in 1995 anyway ? Also didn't pollsters change their methods after their collective failure in 2002 ?

Balladur tracked ahead of Chirac until the end of February. From March onwards, Chirac was consistently ahead.
(Not that a 22 year old election and polls mean that much)

Edit: reading that blog post, it's a shame he mixes his analysis with punditry, because his analysis is interesting.

Specifically:

That last number represents over a third of the votes that either right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy or left-wing candidate François Hollande each got on the first round of the 2012 presidential election,

I believe that's exactly what polls have been capturing for the past few weeks, and it doesn't seem too far fetched. Despite favorable polling, I still believe Macron's bid is a long shot and Fillon can salvage his campaign, but a scenario that combines voter exodus from both PS and LR and a turnout depression definitely exists.
OTOH, Hamon is pretty toast in any scenario.

Ignoring MLP, I believe this will rest a lot on Fillon's ability to brush aside his scandals, as well as shifting his platform to actually offer some perspective to lower/middle classes. Looking at the last 4 decades, the two right wing presidents that got elected did so with a genuinely popular support. Fillon doesn't look the part right now.

 

[mo60]

Balladur tracked ahead of Chirac until the end of February. From March onwards, Chirac was consistently ahead.
(Not that a 22 year old election and polls mean that much)

Edit: reading that blog post, it's a shame he mixes his analysis with punditry, because his analysis is interesting.

Specifically:

I believe that's exactly what polls have been capturing for the past few weeks, and it doesn't seem too far fetched. Despite favorable polling, I still believe Macron's bid is a long shot and Fillon can salvage his campaign, but a scenario that combines voter exodus from both PS and LR and a turnout depression definitely exists.
OTOH, Hamon is pretty toast in any scenario.

Ignoring MLP, I believe this will rest a lot on Fillon's ability to brush aside his scandals, as well as shifting his platform to actually offer some perspective to lower/middle classes. Looking at the last 4 decades, the two right wing presidents that got elected did so with a genuinely popular support. Fillon doesn't look the part right now.

I think it may be a bit to late for any kind of recovery for Fillon. He still has to deal with his scandals which I bet will still haunt him for at least the next month.On wednesday we will figure out what will happen to Fillon next. Also, a lot of the people that supported him a few weeks ago ditched him while Macron kept on getting more and more endorsements from high profile people. Macron is not guaranteed to get past the first round since he does not have a super solid base still but I still think he has around a 55% of getting to the second round. In feburary I would have agreed with you but I don't now. I think we will know if Macron has a strong chance of getting to the second round after the March 20th debate.

 

[mo60]

Manuel Valls may be supporting Macron instead of Hamon now.

Link.
http://www.leparisien.fr/elections/...on-des-le-premier-tour-13-03-2017-6759426.php