EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1388
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12217 Posts
https://fr.statista.com/infographie/32540/repartition-du-temps-de-parole-par-parti-television-elections-legislatives-2024/ | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25538 Posts
On July 08 2024 17:27 Elroi wrote: I think it's interesting that you would say that the media is normalizing the far-right, Neb. What I find shocking when I look at French mainstream and public service media is that they don't represent right-wing perspectives at all. I watched some of TF1 and France 24's coverage of the election night and there was not a single guest from the far right party. Not a single person, and I probably watched for a couple of hours. That is ultimately one day, and probably the least important day possible in terms of influence, albeit that does seem ridiculous. Lacking some sort of metric to ascertain what is ‘fair’ in terms of proportion of coverage more widely is a tricky business indeed. In the UK it’s a pretty frequent criticism that Nigel Farage has some of the highest, if not the highest record of appearances on Question Time over here, which is a public Q and A kind of flagship show. Despite him failing to get elected on a multitude of occasions, and his former UKIP party not really pulling up trees there either, versus say the Greens who have managed to cross the barrier to getting MPs elected and a consistently climbing vote share and tend to be on much less. On the flipside Farage is obviously a very influential political figure, and a borderline single issue one, despite it only being this cycle where he’s ever been elected, so one could argue it’s proportionate for him to be so prominent in being given media platforms. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12217 Posts
| ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4544 Posts
On July 08 2024 16:15 Elroi wrote: Shockingly strong result for the left and the Republican Front. However, for context: the far-right went from having around 10 seats in the National Assembly to having 40 in 2022 and now 140 after yesterday. So however you frame it, it seems very much like a Pyrrhic victory. Unless I'm interpreting Wikipedia incorrectly, RN had 89 seats last election (2022), and 142 now, for a gain of 53 seats. Still big gains for the RN, but not quite as big as your post said  In Belgium we are no stranger to parties forming coalitions to keep the extreme parties out of power. So far it has mostly resulted in bad government and increasingly more votes for the extreme parties, hopefully you guys do it better. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10742 Posts
| ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On July 08 2024 20:18 Laurens wrote: Unless I'm interpreting Wikipedia incorrectly, RN had 89 seats last election (2022), and 142 now, for a gain of 53 seats. Still big gains for the RN, but not quite as big as your post said In Belgium we are no stranger to parties forming coalitions to keep the extreme parties out of power. So far it has mostly resulted in bad government and increasingly more votes for the extreme parties, hopefully you guys do it better. Yeah, I completely missremembered. It seems like the real numbers are 8 seats in the 2017 election, 89 in 2022, and 142 after yesterday. On July 08 2024 22:08 Velr wrote: Hasn't the old "right wing" party of France (Sarcozy and so on) also disintegrated? So that the FN would pick up the people from there that didn't go for Macron seems very likely? Yes, I think that is more or less what has happened. But you see the same thing on the left. Both of the traditional parties - the socialist party and the Republican Party - are very weakened. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
But where are all the people in the german media who used to complain that Trump got elected despite losing the popular vote 46%-48%? Now the differences between popular vote and MPs are much more staggering closer to home and noone seems to care? Yes I understand that with this voting system, tactical withdrawals are fair game and inavoidable, but how can you ignore or even celebrate 35ish% of people voting for the far right, just because the voting system happens to lead to a very different representation in parliament? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12217 Posts
On July 08 2024 23:59 Mafe wrote: I'm sorry as much as I absolutely dont want Le Pen in charge of anything, these results and the reaction are just wrong on so many levels. As were those in british election. First past the post voting at its worst (ok maybe this has been the case previously and I didnt pay attention). But where are all the people in the german media who used to complain that Trump got elected despite losing the popular vote 46%-48%? Now the differences between popular vote and MPs are much more staggering closer to home and noone seems to care? Yes I understand that with this voting system, tactical withdrawals are fair game and inavoidable, but how can you ignore or even celebrate 35ish% of people voting for the far right, just because the voting system happens to lead to a very different representation in parliament? It's quite a stretch to compare someone getting elected because the majority voted for them (but the majority might not have voted for them if the circumstances were different) and someone getting elected because a minority voted for them (but the system allows for them to win anyway). | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4731 Posts
You are looking at it from a weird angle. It's just how FPTP works. In every district, there is a winner that got more votes than the opposition. Nowhere in this system it says that overall results should represent voting percentages across the country. Its kinda assumed that it does, but it is rarely true. It is entirely possible in FPTP system that party A gets 51% of the votes, party B 49% and party A gets 100% of MPs. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Now I don't like FPTP myself, I think it is a bad system prone to being gambled just the way French elections just showed. But that's another discussion entirely. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25538 Posts
On July 08 2024 23:59 Mafe wrote: I'm sorry as much as I absolutely dont want Le Pen in charge of anything, these results and the reaction are just wrong on so many levels. As were those in british election. First past the post voting at its worst (ok maybe this has been the case previously and I didnt pay attention). But where are all the people in the german media who used to complain that Trump got elected despite losing the popular vote 46%-48%? Now the differences between popular vote and MPs are much more staggering closer to home and noone seems to care? Yes I understand that with this voting system, tactical withdrawals are fair game and inavoidable, but how can you ignore or even celebrate 35ish% of people voting for the far right, just because the voting system happens to lead to a very different representation in parliament? Labour had a slightly better vote share, and less overall votes than Corbyn before (higher turnout that time) and we’ve gone from a disaster that shows Corbyn is unelectable, to one of the most crushing majorities in recent times. It’s a bit daft. One of the core problems there is that it’s a system that sorta does work in a de facto 2 party nation. However, the modern UK, while not having as many parties vying for actual power as other places, still has sizeable enough parties to really expose the issues with that system. In France, it’s a bit different with the quirks of their system. I actually kind of like elements of it. It serves as a canary in the coal mine or a safety harness that stops a fringe party sneaking in first time around if the electorate are somewhat complacent. For me politics is as much about what you don’t support as you do support, and it’s about much more than voting day. With that said I can sort of understand that it’ll definitely frustrate folks. On the one hand it is sort of heartening that French parties put aside differences to keep the RN out of power, but on the other it doesn’t feel a ‘good look’ as it were if you’re only doing that by tactically withdrawing candidates in various constituencies. And if you’re already a disenfranchised RN, or potential RN voter it’s not going to feel especially democratic, or at least it’ll validate perceptions of the traditional ‘elite’ trying to stifle the voice of the people and other such. I’m not sure how long that dam holds Partly informed by how our politics works in practice in NI, I’ve long mulled over the benefits of what I call ‘negative voting’. I’m sure someone somewhere has also done so elsewhere, and given it a snappier name. The mechanics of it are open to codifying but essentially it’s preferential ranked voting in some form, only you get to also vote for the party you least support and have that weighed the same, only the inverse to your preference. I’ll try to work out the kinks and hopefully one day it’ll be widely adopted :p In essence I think it should cut down on the need for tactical voting and better reflect actual sentiment. So say I despise party A’s politics, like party B’s but I have to realistically vote party C who I’m thoroughly lukewarm on now to keep party A out, whereas under my proposal I could just ‘negatively’ vote against A and vote for my actual preference. There are undoubtedly negative externalities I have overlooked, although to be fair almost every electoral system I’m aware of. But I think as a core premise extending voting to not just being a vote for, but enabling a vote against makes a lot of sense. You’d definitely need some kind of threshold of votes cast and some weighting to prevent a scenario where party A and party B’s votes essentially cancel each other’s out and some fringe candidate like Count Binface wins with 78 votes of course! | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18026 Posts
The problem with it feeling unfair is inherent to the direct representation. As long as a politician represents a district, only one politician can represent that district. Which means that if you are the second-biggest party everywhere, but everywhere it's someone different beating you, you can have the largest popular vote share but zero representation. It is ineffectual to be the second biggest everywhere and instead you should target being the biggest somewhere. If you are hated, like the RN, that can be difficult to achieve when everyone will band together to keep you out. But it isn't fundamentally different from a coalition system where the Far Right has gotten the plurality vote but has been unable to form a government in a few countries, because the other parties prefer to work together across the spectrum than work with the far right. The main difference is that the people who voted are at least represented in the opposition and you don't have that significant portion of the population feeling unseen and unheard. That said, direct representation has advantages as well and I am not sure proportional representation is strictly better. Every country has to weigh its own needs. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2112 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12217 Posts
On July 09 2024 08:14 AssyrianKing wrote: From my honest point of view, there isn't anything in Le Pen's policies that are 'far right'. So why is everyone stressing if she goes into power? Did Marine forget to put "I'm a huge racist" in her policy program once again? :/ | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4731 Posts
To be honest this is also a problem with Melenchon and his folks. Now I know he is only a part of the coalition, but people over here are seriously worried about France making "pro-Russia turn" as result of those elections. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18026 Posts
On July 09 2024 08:14 AssyrianKing wrote: From my honest point of view, there isn't anything in Le Pen's policies that are 'far right'. So why is everyone stressing if she goes into power? The far right is taking a stab at the whole rebranding thing, and it looks like you swallowed it hook, line and sinker? Wilders did it successfully, and Le Pen and Farage had some success as well, at least in the popular vote. They're "distancing" themselves from their past racist comments, kicking the more extreme elements out of their party and claiming that they are no longer racist. It's up to you to believe them, but what remains of the populist parties without the racism is essentially socialism. So why are they so angry the socialists won? Won't that enable all their policies (except the racist oness)? Melenchon is a euroskeptic, Labour has no intention to return to the EU. Or are they actually just wolves in sheep's clothes, and they'll definitely activate all their racist trap cards again the minute they are in power. There's a very real reason why Wilders' partners in the coalition don't trust his "reform", and wanted to keep him far away from the PM position. Maybe in 4 years it'll be clear that he has truly reformed, and doesn't want to leave the EU and banish the Poles, and kick legal Moroccan immigrants out of the country. That his firebrand Fitna days are over, and he has actual policy ideas that don't require changing the constitution to allow discrimination based on race and/or religion. But I for one highly doubt it. Here is a decent article about racism in RN and in Reform UK: https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24420921.no-getting-away-racist-dimension-far-right-vot/ | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2112 Posts
On July 09 2024 18:18 Acrofales wrote: The far right is taking a stab at the whole rebranding thing, and it looks like you swallowed it hook, line and sinker? Wilders did it successfully, and Le Pen and Farage had some success as well, at least in the popular vote. They're "distancing" themselves from their past racist comments, kicking the more extreme elements out of their party and claiming that they are no longer racist. It's up to you to believe them, but what remains of the populist parties without the racism is essentially socialism. So why are they so angry the socialists won? Won't that enable all their policies (except the racist oness)? Melenchon is a euroskeptic, Labour has no intention to return to the EU. Or are they actually just wolves in sheep's clothes, and they'll definitely activate all their racist trap cards again the minute they are in power. There's a very real reason why Wilders' partners in the coalition don't trust his "reform", and wanted to keep him far away from the PM position. Maybe in 4 years it'll be clear that he has truly reformed, and doesn't want to leave the EU and banish the Poles, and kick legal Moroccan immigrants out of the country. That his firebrand Fitna days are over, and he has actual policy ideas that don't require changing the constitution to allow discrimination based on race and/or religion. But I for one highly doubt it. Here is a decent article about racism in RN and in Reform UK: https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24420921.no-getting-away-racist-dimension-far-right-vot/ I'm from the middle eastern myself first of all. I have seen the rise of political parties and people voting for these parties in Europe who have policies to reduce immigration, at least from countries where people have proven that they can't or do not want to integrate into western society. To be honest I understand this because if it was my country I wouldn't want people coming to my country who don't respect the laws or the culture of the land. This issue is undeniably real and will only get worse considering the large amount of immigration a lot of Western European countries allow and how low the current fertility rate is in Western Europe. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria827 Posts
On July 10 2024 08:26 AssyrianKing wrote: I'm from the middle eastern myself first of all. I have seen the rise of political parties and people voting for these parties in Europe who have policies to reduce immigration, at least from countries where people have proven that they can't or do not want to integrate into western society. To be honest I understand this because if it was my country I wouldn't want people coming to my country who don't respect the laws or the culture of the land. This issue is undeniably real and will only get worse considering the large amount of immigration a lot of Western European countries allow and how low the current fertility rate is in Western Europe. I can't speak for Western Europe, but if my country was to accommodate more immigrants than right now, I'd expect the following: - no sudden influx of immigrants, e.g. 1 million immigrants in 1 year is too much but 200 000 every year for 5 years is a lot more tolerable (sudden change may place a burden on housing and local community) - immigrants should accept country's culture, traditions and should hopefully contribute to society/workforce Problem is a few years ago leftists were extremely quick to call someone "racist" for even opening their mouth about immigration (e.g. during Merkel's "Refugees welcome" period). This is toxic as some topics need to be discussed instead of shut down. This is how you prevent far right parties from rising in my opinion. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13969 Posts
On July 13 2024 18:33 SC-Shield wrote: I can't speak for Western Europe, but if my country was to accommodate more immigrants than right now, I'd expect the following: - no sudden influx of immigrants, e.g. 1 million immigrants in 1 year is too much but 200 000 every year for 5 years is a lot more tolerable (sudden change may place a burden on housing and local community) - immigrants should accept country's culture, traditions and should hopefully contribute to society/workforce Problem is a few years ago leftists were extremely quick to call someone "racist" for even opening their mouth about immigration (e.g. during Merkel's "Refugees welcome" period). This is toxic as some topics need to be discussed instead of shut down. This is how you prevent far right parties from rising in my opinion. I wouldn't disagree that a discussion on how to reform immigration needs to happen in most nations in the west, especially to prepare for the upcoming waves due to climate change, but lets not do revisionist history on what the right wing was doing about it for so long. So much attention in the UK and America was about small boats and the border and there was a rather successful campaign to make it seem like all immigration was coming illegally across the border one way or another. The vast proportion of migration into nations comes entirely legally through legal ports of entry with legal visas. They become undocumented illegal aliens due to their visas lapseing and not wanting to go back for a host of reasons. The far right was able to frame the debate that any legitimate reform by the left to immigration was seen as giving into the racist narrative the right was spinning about immigration. Lets not trick ourselves into thinking its going to make assimilating into the culture easier when you label a group of people as invaders. As always in increased polarization the sensible middle direction of making it easier to become citizens but making visa levels dependent on domestic investment into the infrastructure to accept the increased population gets lost. | ||
| ||
