|
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. |
Norway28682 Posts
On June 11 2017 05:41 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2017 05:34 Neneu wrote:On June 11 2017 05:02 Sent. wrote:
Looks like German and Swiss posters are the only people on this forum who have little reasons to complain about their voting systems. Maybe Scandinavians too, don't remember any of them complaining. Yep, no complaints here :D Isnt norway the country where each vote is weighted by the area of the constituency of the voter? xd
the actual calculation as far as I know is that each region's amount of representatives is determined by inhabitants + km2 of the region. Finnmark, the northmost region, end up getting 5 instead of 3 representatives because they have like 70k inhabitants living in a 48km2 large area. Idea kinda being that 3 representatives isn't gonna be enough to give a voice to a population that spread out, or something to that effect. For the other regions population density is too high for the area to really be that significant. There are some other policies in place to counter-balance significant discrepancies. That said, there have been majority coalitions that got a minority of the vote in the past, but it's far less likely to happen than say, in the US.
|
On June 11 2017 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2017 05:53 Big J wrote:On June 11 2017 05:46 Nyxisto wrote:
There's a logic to the French system. Imagine Macron not getting a majority, ending up without the ability to act and being a disappointment. Then you'd have Le Pen in five years. At least now he gets the chance to prove whether his ideas work. This is a good thing Then you have something called democracy. A representative parliament that makes the rules. Oh the horrors. Pretty much all the oldest, stable democracies on the planet aren't proportional. It's a pretty hefty claim to call them undemocratic. There's a weakness to proportional systems especially if the parliament is fractured. You can easily end up with rapidly switching governments, no way to pass legislation, neglect of some regional minority and so forth. It's not self-evident at all that proportional systems are superior. Show nested quote +There are tons of systems which would allow him to govern without bulldozing any opposition and leaving 45-55% of the country with crumbs... With a simple "proportional + strong bonus for whoever is ahead" system he could get the 289 députés needed. Sure this particular result is extreme. But it's also fairly untypical to see the two traditional parties implode this heavily, especially the socialists. On a side note I was also happy to see that Villani runs for Macron, hope he wins.
Obviously it's not self-evident, as it is not clearly, technically defined what a "representative democracy" is. But technical questions matter. It's actually all there is from the system-side of things.
Since people don't like basing their political systems on clear logical abstraction of basic values they have to be instable by nature. It's just what happens if you create logical inconsistencies.
|
Hope that Macron gets full powers so he can actually make something out of France.
France needs a good kick in the butt and I hope this guy can do it. Get employment and the economy going. Put a stop to the absolutely stupid and ridiculous amount of regulation hindering our growth. More common sense, less government regulation.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
People often say something akin to "Macron just needs to fix the economy and everything will be fine and dandy." Well I might ask why people think it's quite so easy? I mean if this were just a standard cycle of ups and downs maybe it would be that easy to just ride on the upswing, but this recession is clearly more akin to an unequal recovery in which those best suited to a more global business environment benefit, while those who suffer from it are increasingly being left behind. And Macron seems far from the kind of politician who has shown he has what it takes. He mostly seems to be adept at photo ops and making Germany happy as of right now.
|
It's never easy. I never said it was. I don't think Macron will magically fix anything. I'm not that stupid.
However if you're going to get things fixed, then you need to be willing make changes in policies and laws. I think Macron has the vision which could bring about change. I also know that if he's going to change things for the better, he needs the tools to do so. A majority in the parliament is one of the best tools you could ask for in his situation.
I have been cautiously optimistic about Macron since his election. So far, so good. I would like to see where he goes and what he accomplishes.
France is in too shitty a state for it to be fixed within 5 years. However I firmly believe that a more positive trend can be set. Macron is an outlier and hopefully a vector of good changes. He seems intelligent at the very least, unlike mr Pumpkin the USA has right now.
Regressive leftists will complain about him but I see hope. Time will tell whether I'm right or wrong, I don't frankly care about the whole "i told u so" attitude. I just care to see France do well.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The "presidential monarchy" approach of giving someone a party worth of support in the legislature just because they became president (through whatever official methods that happens; I am not familiar with the intricacies of the French electoral process) has the potential to be very problematic if your candidate turns out to be shit. If you're an optimist you'll say it gives them breathing room to move your agenda forward. If you're not, then you will note that it really gives them unchecked power for a bit too long. I've seen too many dark-horse-turned-major-party-leader presidents become disasters not to be suspicious of that in general.
Before it comes to that, I'll note that Le Pen would be the same. But at least she's anti-EU which is something I definitely like. God knows that too many foreigners like Macron just because he isn't anti-EU, so I can't say the reverse is any more petty than that.
|
It's not just because he's pro-EU. In a time when everyone fears populism is on the rise, the good old third way with a likable and competent figurehead seems like a pretty agreeable proposition.
|
France ie actually crazy. Neither of the two big parties got the presidency in a system Which favours the 2 biggest parties. Macron deserves at leat a chance to implement his policies.
The comparison between Le Pen and Macron is ridiculous. One is an outward looking liberal and the other an inward looking nationist. The EU has little to do with that. They're not the same in any way excpet that they're not from the 2 established parties.
|
On June 11 2017 05:20 Sent. wrote:
It's kind of funny, but our biggest domestic anti-system organisation (they refuse to call themselves a party) complains about "particracy" (we have a proportional system that slightly empowers bigger parties) and want a system similar to the one in the UK, thinking it's more democratic because it somehow makes the MPs more responsible to their constituents. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
Well, they formally are not a party, they are not registered as such.
I never understood their obsession with FPTP. It only takes a glance at countries that do use it to realize that it doesn't produce the outcome they so desire. Most countries with FPTP have much bigger problems with partisanship than Poland does. They seem oblivious to the institution of a party whip.
|
19,24% participation rate at 12:00, down from 21,06% in 2012 (57,22% final participation in 2012...). If the ratio is the same as in 2007 and 2012, this could mean as much as 48% abstention...
|
Sounds like it was never easier to have an impact and change something and 48% should seriously stfu after the election.
|
40,75% participation rate at 17:00, down from 48,31% in 2012. Vote is over at 18:00, except in some big cities.
Edit—Ipsos claims abstention could be as high as 50,5%!!
|
What's the reasoning behind such high abstention rates?
|
On June 12 2017 01:11 warding wrote:
What's the reasoning behind such high abstention rates?
Structural crisis of the French political system, presidentialism killing "democracy" (législatives are aligned a month after the présidentielle since 2002, so they're a mere ratification), zero national campaign after the presidential + medias/polls saying 24/7 that Macron will have full powers (triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy), heavy demobilization/resignation from the young and the lower classes who didn't believe a "third round" was possible
|
That's what happens when people voted for someone cause "it's the only solution to counter lepen". Less than 25% of his first round voters voted for him by conviction. Talk about a rigged election, the extreme right fear narrative did its job long before the 2nd round this time.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On June 12 2017 01:17 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 01:11 warding wrote:
What's the reasoning behind such high abstention rates? Structural crisis of the French political system, presidentialism killing "democracy" (législatives are aligned a month after the présidentielle since 2002, so they're a mere ratification), zero national campaign after the presidential + medias/polls saying 24/7 that Macron will have full powers (triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy), heavy demobilization/resignation from the young and the lower classes who didn't believe a "third round" was possible
While I understand this argument haven't the last years shown (in several elections) that it's actually the opposite? If the media 24/7 reports for example that Macron is a sure thing, potential Macron voters will have a higher abstention rate, because they think it's a sure thing anyway?
|
On June 12 2017 01:34 Furikawari wrote:
That's what happens when people voted for someone cause "it's the only solution to counter lepen". Less than 25% of his first round voters voted for him by conviction. Talk about a rigged election, the extreme right fear narrative did its job long before the 2nd round this time.
Pretty much most left-wingers will agree that LePen deserved to be chastised , I assume TheDwf is among them. Also can we not do the whole "rigged election" thing when in fact no rigging happened
|
On June 12 2017 02:07 TheNewEra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 01:17 TheDwf wrote:On June 12 2017 01:11 warding wrote:
What's the reasoning behind such high abstention rates? Structural crisis of the French political system, presidentialism killing "democracy" (législatives are aligned a month after the présidentielle since 2002, so they're a mere ratification), zero national campaign after the presidential + medias/polls saying 24/7 that Macron will have full powers (triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy), heavy demobilization/resignation from the young and the lower classes who didn't believe a "third round" was possible While I understand this argument haven't the last years shown (in several elections) that it's actually the opposite? If the media 24/7 reports for example that Macron is a sure thing, potential Macron voters will have a higher abstention rate, because they think it's a sure thing anyway?
Sarkozy, Hollande and Macron were leading in polls for months, and it didn't prevent their voters from coming. There's a classical effect of differential demobilization after the presidential: the winning side usually gets 100-105% of the votes (compared with the presidential), the opposition used to gather 90-95%, and other parties collapsed because the voting system decimates them anyway. This year, the winner might actually lose 15% of the votes (we'll see in 30 minutes), and the real opposition is based on political formations which automatically get demolished by the voting system and whose electorate is the most likely to abstain. The historical right will resist a bit more because their base of wealthy pensioners always comes to religiously vote for them.
|
On June 12 2017 02:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 01:34 Furikawari wrote:
That's what happens when people voted for someone cause "it's the only solution to counter lepen". Less than 25% of his first round voters voted for him by conviction. Talk about a rigged election, the extreme right fear narrative did its job long before the 2nd round this time. Pretty much most left-wingers will agree that LePen deserved to be chastised , I assume TheDwf is among them. Also can we not do the whole "rigged election" thing when in fact no rigging happened
there are many ways to rig an election, like, for example, a certain narrative being pushed by main media.
|
the 'mainstream media' has always favoured certain candidates and derided others, that's true since the printing press exists. Obviously candidates with broad appeal or more moderate positions will have an easier time with established institutions. This weird obsession about 'rigging' is new. What exactly has changed?
People need to shake off the victim complex, losing an election doesn't mean that it's rigged
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
