Dedicated to AKD…..We aim to please Â
Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Segolene Royal received the most votes in a field of 12 candidates that ranged from far left Trotskyite parties to far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. Turnout was 84 percent, the highest since 1965.
- During campaigning for the first round, the candidates concentrated on addressing France’s problems, which include unrest among North African immigrants and their descendents, who rioted in poor suburban housing projects in 2005.
The incredibly destructive French riots of 2005 were set off when two “youths” fled from police, broke into an electrical station to hide, and then were electrocuted when they touched the wrong thing. This triggered three weeks of intense violence, with thousand of cars burned and many people injured. And a few days ago, French presidential candidate Segolene Royal visited the memorial, laid a wreath on it, and commiserated with the parents of the two dead criminals.
- Chronically high unemployment and France’s sluggish and uncompetitive economy are also a major concern to voters.
France pays the price for those liberal jobless benefits
- Foreign relations are generally not an issue in French presidential elections despite being among the president’s duties.
I’ll leave that sentence to speak for itself……
The incredibly destructive French riots of 2005 were set off when two “youths”fled from police, broke into an electrical station to hide, and then were electrocuted when they touched the wrong thing. This triggered three weeks of intense violence, with thousand of cars burned and many people injured. And a few days ago, French presidential candidate Segolene Royal visited the memorial, laid a wreath on it, and commiserated with the parents of the two dead criminals.
Well I hope the French authorities have learned a lesson! Criminals, no matter what their age, should be able to ply their trade in safety! It is their right!
It’s definitely a weird scene. In the primaries, the most popular far-right candidate (Le Pen) argued that folks shouldn’t vote for the pretty-right candidate (Sarkozy) because the latter looked “too ethnic.”
France also has some of the more bizarre political parties I’ve encountered. There a three separate communist parties (two Trotskyist) as well as some sort of hunting and fishing party that wants France to go back to ancient times (keep in mind these people are recognizable in the way that folks like Howard Dean or John McCain are recognizable—they’re not just random weirdos).
It’s odd how much of the Royal vs. Sarkozy thing doubles some of what has gone on in the U.S. No one in Paris really cares for Sarkozy but he’ll probably be elected because he has a strong base in the French equivalent of the “heartland.” Royal doesn’t seem too bad but she’s a little robotic (as the last two U.S. democratic candidates have been).
On the other hand, there’s still no worse insult than saying that “candidate X” believes in American style politics—-even those on the far right have to pay lip-service to a strong welfare state, laicite, etc.
AKD – I think that you’ve provided a good overview of why there were 12 presidential candidates, and why most of them didn’t really have a shot of doing anything other than being a spoiler.
Another article – just read the first section – that talks about each of the other candidates and what their poll results were.
http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=720
I was impressed by the fact that federal election financing seems to support anyone running, I’d like to see the pursuit of money play a much smaller part in our system.
2- Ah, but alas money becomes free speech in the country and to limit the money is a limit to free speech…
I am with you…I’d like to see a 6 month election cycle tops and have the field opened up beyond 2 parties…
3,4.
I agree with both of you.
One interesting thing about the dozen parties, though, is that they don’t just play a spoiler role (though they certainly do that as well). I assumed the same thing and I was speaking to a French friend and asking why (relatively) so many people actually vote for, e.g., the candidate whose only platform is environmental issues. He said that a lot of French folks vote for this sort of candidate because the candidates who progress to the next round will have to seek these one-issue candidates’ endorsements (and will usually end up giving them a minister position or something to get them). In other words, someone will have to make big concessions to Le Pen, Bayrou, etc. because they both finished relatively strong. Apparently the upshot of this is that there’s a lot less of the “don’t waste your vote” rhetoric than we get in the states. The issue survives the candidate.
I’d love to see a shorter election cycle, and I’d also love to see some finance reform (is this still McCain’s pet issue?). I don’t mind all of the commercials but, being from Ohio, did I really need to see three Bush or Kerry commercials during every commercial break for six months straight?
I would love to see America go to a poly-partisaned system.
I also would like something like that – where all issues can get some attention paid to them and my vote for the environment (for example) couldn’t be misinterpreted as a vote for war (for example). But unfortunately, with our current electoral system, I can’t see it happening – and I can’t see a change in system happening either. The two-phased elections such as in France or a parlimentary election system would support that, as we see in evidence elsewhere. Our electoral college should allow for that type of deal-making but we’ve constrained the electors and put in winner-take-all systems such that it won’t happen. I never before thought about how that can make our democracy actually less representative.
philotri- you lost me on this, because there is still just 1 ultimate winner in France, no matter how they hold the run-up…
This is an observation that we have talked about in the past on this site…people complain about the SC, but it the only way to insure that all votes count…If we went by popular vote, CA, NY and TX would elect our POTUS…That isn’t fair…if people want to make a difference, don’t just talk about voting, do it..
The past 2 elections have been close, but guess what? We didn’t even have 1/2 the eligible voters voting….
there is still just 1 ultimate winner in France, no matter how they hold the run-up:
True, but during the period between the primary and final elections, the two candidates who are left work to secure the endorsements of all the other candidates in the field. Usually the candidates who finished strongest (in this case, Bayrou and, to a lesser extent, Le Pen) end up with minister positions and get to see their pet issues become a top priority. Anyway, this seems different from winning the presidency with 51% of the electoral vote (in an election where less than 50% of eligible voters voted anyway), declaring you have a “mandate” and trying to shove through every one of your policies.
it the only way to insure that all votes count:If we went by popular vote, CA, NY and TX would elect our POTUS:That isn’t fair
How is it that, if we switch to a “one person, one vote” model, not all the votes count? As it is, someone’s vote in WY, for example, is worth much more than the vote of someone in NY. How is this fair? If we got rid of the electoral college, the candidate who received the majority of votes would win. It doesn’t make any sense to say that CA, NY, and TX would then elect the president because the election would no longer be decided state by state. Every vote would go into the same pot, so to speak. This way, the United States would elect the president and each citizen who voted would play the same role.
9- After the primaries, our candidates also work to secure the vote of the people to elect their party.
How is it that
How is someones vote in WY worth more than NY? Right now, the person that gets the majority of the votes in your state does win…you are a member of a state.
the Founding Fathers always intended that the states — not the people — select the president.
Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.
“A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.” — Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
“The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.” — Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
“A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.”" Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
“The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.”" Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”" Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
These quotes prove that the Founding Fathers anticipated Democrat voters!!!