French legislative elections

[Steph]

Yesterday was the first turn of the legislative election in France, to elect the "Assemblée Nationale".

UMP and allies, right wing: 43%, can get 405 to 455 "députés" after second round
PS, socialist : 28.6%, can get 100 to 140 after second round
PC, communist : 5%, can get 6 to 12 after second round
Green : 1-3 députés
Centre: 1-4 députés.

All the other partis are already eliminated.

Total is 555, and with 289 you have a majority

 

[Winner]

I didn't know you had 2 rounds in elections to the National Assembly too, it kinda suprised me.

Anyway, how comes it is so one-sided? The presidential elections were a bit tighter, so what has changed people's minds since then?

 

[MamboJoel]

@Steph, you forgot the Democratic Movement : 1-4 députés.

@Winner, it's a majority vote, it amplifies the victory to ensure a majority in the lower chamber.

 

[Steph]

I didn't know you had 2 rounds in elections to the National Assembly too, it kinda suprised me.

Anyway, how comes it is so one-sided? The presidential elections were a bit tighter, so what has changed people's minds since then?

Let me explain how it works.
Each department is divided in several "circonscription" (in my department there are 4).
We have a total of 555 (one for each "députés")
For the first round, in each circonscription, you can have many candidates, from different partis.
If one of them get more than 50% of the vote, then he is immediately elected. It happened in 20% of the cases this time: 110 députés are already elected (only one socialist among them)

If no one get 50%, there is a second round betweent the all the candidates that did at least 12.5% for the first round. However, some candidates can decide to quite, and it's often the object of negociation between parties (if you quite here, we quite there)

But the election is local: if you win in your circonscription, the result elsewhere has no effect.

So, if a parti makes exactly 51%, in every circonscription, he can theoretically have 555 députés, while another parti with 49% in every circonscription would get none.

That's why with 43% of the votes at first round (remember, Sarkozy made 38% for first round, then 53%), UMP could get 75% of the députés.

 

[Steph]

@Steph, you forgot the Democratic Movement : 1-4 députés.

@Winner, it's a majority vote, it amplifies the victory to ensure a majority in the lower chamber.

They are in, I just called them "centre" for our foreign friends who may not know the new name.

 

[Winner]

Let me explain how it works.
Each department is divided in several "circonscription" (in my department there are 4).
We have a total of 555 (one for each "députés")
For the first round, in each circonscription, you can have many candidates, from different partis.
If one of them get more than 50% of the vote, then he is immediately elected. It happened in 20% of the cases this time: 110 députés are already elected (only one socialist among them)

If no one get 50%, there is a second round betweent the all the candidates that did at least 12.5% for the first round. However, some candidates can decide to quite, and it's often the object of negociation between parties (if you quite here, we quite there)

But the election is local: if you win in your circonscription, the result elsewhere has no effect.

So, if a parti makes exactly 51%, in every circonscription, he can theoretically have 555 députés, while another parti with 49% in every circonscription would get none.

That's why with 43% of the votes at first round (remember, Sarkozy made 38% for first round, then 53%), UMP could get 75% of the députés.

Thanks for information, Steph.

I was living under impression you had standard proportional system for legislative elections (I don't know why, I should have known that - that's what happens when you study polical science ) and 2 round majority presidential elections.

Anyway, it makes sense to have majority voting in the french semi-presidential system.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

UMP is going to win. Atlast something good happens in France. The multiple election system seems good, fewer parties in the parliament.

 

[Winner]

UMP is going to win. Atlast something good happens in France. The multiple election system seems good, fewer parties in the parliament.

They get clear majorities, which is wonderful.

In Czech Rep., we only have majorities depending on one ore two votes. The results are paralysing.

 

[bhsup]

Just so I'm sure I understand, with the exception of the run-off election, it sounds identical to the election for our House of Representatives. Each State is divided into however congressional districts the census determines it deserves. Each district has it's own slate of candidates and, this is where ours is apparently different, whoever wins the most votes wins, whether it is 30% or 51%.

My only confusion is regarding how the number of circonscriptions are determined. Is it based on population distribution, or is there some old traditional "this department always had this many" kind of thing like the English apparently use?

 

[Steph]

"Circonscriptions" are more or less 100,000 inhabitants. The electoral law of 1986 also says that no circonscription in a department should have more than 20% more inhabitants than the average population in each circonscription of the same departement.

However, there are difference between rural and urban circonscription. For instance, the most populous circonscription in Val d'Oise is 188 000 voters, while the less populous in Lozère has only 34 000 voters.

 

[MamboJoel]

The circonscriptions are updated after each census. The Constitutional council requires we update them for next election btw.
VRWC, yes, the system is a little bit like the House despite (very very fast) :
- 2 turns voting in each circonscription (if no one gets 50% at the first turn)
- The Assemblée (lower house) has almost all the power (the Senate can stop very few laws except ones regarding the Constitution)
- 5 years term
- The President can disolve it and provoke a new legislative election
- The Assemblée controls the government : can force the gov to resign (thus practically provoking a dissolution).
There you have the basics...

 

[Masquerouge]

I guess what this means is that the French voters want to give the President the means to implement his policies.

Even though I'm not the biggest Sarkozy fan out there, at least I think it's a good idea to have a government that can do things

 

[LordRahl]

I've never thought I'd say it - but good job France!. Get those socialist bastards out - capitalism is the only way.

 

[Masquerouge]

I've never thought I'd say it - but good job France!. Get those socialist bastards out - capitalism is the only way.

Errrr... you might want to know a bit more about the context.

Socialists are already out - since 1995, and French socialists are pretty capitalists allright. Sometimes the name isn't the game.

 

[kryszcztov]

Total is 555, and with 289 you have a majority

You need less than 289 to have a majority with 555 seats. That's because there are 577 seats in fact.

I guess what this means is that the French voters want to give the President the means to implement his policies.

Just 43% (UMP score) of 61% (participation) of the potential voters, which is about 26% of the people who can vote.


With such a majority, I guess we don't need an Assemblée Nationale for debates or interesting votes anymore. Just forget it, we have Super Sarko to do the job. The job that only 31% of 84% (about 26% again) in the 1st round of the presidential elections believed in.

 

[Steph]

You need less than 289 to have a majority with 555 seats. That's because there are 577 seats in fact.

Yes, I stupidly copied the figures that was beside the graphic I used to get the results, and it was obviously wrong

 

[innonimatu]

Well, if the election for the senate had remained set for this year I guess that Sarkozy and his party would soon be able to do pretty much anything they wanted (except setting himself up as king ).

 

[Marla_Singer]

With such a majority, I guess we don't need an Assemblée Nationale for debates or interesting votes anymore. Just forget it, we have Super Sarko to do the job. The job that only 31% of 84% (about 26% again) in the 1st round of the presidential elections believed in.

If you consider that Sarkozy isn't legitimate despite having won the 2nd round with 53% of votes out of 84% turnout, then who's more legitimate than him ?
The one who got 25% in the first round ??

Considering that in many democracies the turnout doesn't exceed 40%, we can decently believe that there aren't many legitimate leaders in the Western world !

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, if the election for the senate had remained set for this year I guess that Sarkozy and his party would soon be able to do pretty much anything they wanted (except setting himself up as king ).

Actually, the Senate is right wing too... but in France it's a rather useless chamber. Firstly, it's not elected directly but through local representatives (Mayors and so on). Secondly, in case of a disagreement between the Senate and the National Assembly, then the National Assembly is constitutionally considered as having the last word.

Anyway, things are rather weird since Sarkozy has all powers at the national levels, but on the other side, 20 out of the 22 metropolitan regions are controlled by the socialist party !

 

[The Yankee]

Is there a risk of that huge majority in the National Assembly falling apart due to internal squabbling or are they a pretty tight bunch?