French presidential election 2017

[Lillefix]

This reasoning is pretty weird.
Cutting the amount of voting rounds is pretty low on the reasons to chose a system, and we certainly prefer to have healthy plurality of political parties over it.

I think the danger could be that the more times you have to vote, fewer people will vote. But it doesn't seem to be a problem in France. In the American election 58% voted last year for example.

 

[AdrienIer]

Which is proof that even if you condense all the voting on one day you don't necessarily get more participation

 

[Grisu]

Thanks for the answers. It's strange that no-one's talking about it; you'd think it'd be an idea that gains traction every 5 years when people have to go back to the polls for a second time to do something that could've been achieved through one visit..

That's not really an issue here. We get 4 annual dates for elections anyway, so one more will hardly make a difference. Also it's not like voting (not the inform yourself etc part, but strictly the act of voting) needs a large effort or much time.

 

[Kraznaya]

The French definitely have the right idea, holding their voting on a Sunday. Even better would be a national holiday.

 

[Commodore]

I think the danger could be that the more times you have to vote, fewer people will vote. But it doesn't seem to be a problem in France. In the American election 58% voted last year for example.

That's due to our political apathy though. Most people would rather work, play video games, or masturbate than take the time to go out and vote.

 

[metatron]

Thanks for the answers. It's strange that no-one's talking about it; you'd think it'd be an idea that gains traction every 5 years when people have to go back to the polls for a second time to do something that could've been achieved through one visit.

Let me be blunt here for a moment:
1. Alternative Vote / Preferential Voting / Instant Run-Off are just goddamn awful, terrible and suck, suck, suck, suck.
2. As far as CFC-OT is concerned there is a substantial trend that anybody claiming the contrary is a (non-Kiwi) Anglospherian currently or previously exposed to simple FPTP election schemes (i.e. the only thing worse).
That's systematic.

Fundamentally instant run-offs are in terms of game theory all about voting against candidates rather than for them. This is obviously a rather toxic affair by design.
The only reason it works so wonderfully well for Australians is that the people getting screwed by the system are the majority who end up ruling the country anyway, so it doesn't matter.

We can perfectly well observe the utter abomination that instant run-offs are, whenever they work according to their design and the bully isn't the victim:

Yeah. That.
And then they are all "oh, we're so racist!"
To which i would say: "maybe, maybe not, but certainly too dumb for democracy".

Anyway, to be clear: Compared to AV having a multi-round election as the French do is outright superior and the Academy should do that too.
If one has to do coalition building for the sake of a single-seat election scheme (i.e. a presidency) doing it instantly, secretly, without conversation and campaigning and largely on gut feelz is roughly the worst way to go about it.

 

[AdrienIer]

Let me be blunt here for a moment:
1. Alternative Vote / Preferential Voting / Instant Run-Off are just goddamn awful, terrible and suck, suck, suck, suck.
2. As far as CFC-OT is concerned there is a substantial trend that anybody claiming the contrary is a (non-Kiwi) Anglospherian currently or previously exposed to simple FPTP election schemes (i.e. the only thing worse).
That's systematic.

Fundamentally instant run-offs are in terms of game theory all about voting against candidates rather than for them. This is obviously a rather toxic affair by design.
The only reason it works so wonderfully well for Australians is that the people getting screwed by the system are the majority who end up ruling the country anyway, so it doesn't matter.

We can perfectly well observe the utter abomination that instant run-offs are, whenever they work according to their design and the bully isn't the victim:

Yeah. That.
And then they are all "oh, we're so racist!"
To which i would say: "maybe, maybe not, but certainly too dumb for democracy".

Anyway, to be clear: Compared to AV having a multi-round election as the French do is outright superior and the Academy should do that too.
If one has to do coalition building for the sake of a single-seat election scheme (i.e. a presidency) doing it instantly, secretly, without conversation and campaigning and largely on gut feelz is roughly the worst way to go about it.

I can assure you that people here, myself included, hate our current system. There was a non-zero chance that we'd have a Fillon/Le pen second round when about 75% of people hate Fillon and 75% hate Le Pen

 

[Akka]

I can assure you that people here, myself included, hate our current system. There was a non-zero chance that we'd have a Fillon/Le pen second round when about 75% of people hate Fillon and 75% hate Le Pen

Maybe, but it's still vastly superior to the US system (and the anglo-saxon system in general).

 

[metatron]

I can assure you that people here, myself included, hate our current system. There was a non-zero chance that we'd have a Fillon/Le pen second round when about 75% of people hate Fillon and 75% hate Le Pen

Ok, but do you actually find AV attractive?
I mean aside from this particular instance (where it may very well work in preventing Le Pen (which most systems arguably would at this point, but anyway)).

 

[Lillefix]

I can assure you that people here, myself included, hate our current system. There was a non-zero chance that we'd have a Fillon/Le pen second round when about 75% of people hate Fillon and 75% hate Le Pen

Much of the problem is this new fancy and "democratic" way to choose candidate. In the US they got Trump in Britain they got Corbin. They should rather go back to good old party dictatorship where they tend to choose the most electable.

 

[AdrienIer]

Ok, but do you actually find AV attractive?
I mean aside from this particular instance (where it may very well work in preventing Le Pen (which most systems arguably would at this point, but anyway)).

Frankly yes. This election amounted to a FPTP between the non-Le Pen candidates which is awful. The question is not about avoiding Le Pen it's about electing a president.
In 02 our system had its first hiccup. Since then people have been doing "useful" voting instead of voting for the candidate they prefer. The 2-round system works when there are two major parties (or at least two large sides that can each be representated in the second round) but not when there are 4 electoral blocs (left center right far-right for this election)

Full AV is terrible (I don't want to have to rate Asselineau Le Pen or Fillon) but free AV is a good method.

 

[AdrienIer]

Maybe, but it's still vastly superior to the US system (and the anglo-saxon system in general).

I would say that out of the voting systems in the world only the US aberration and FPTP are worse. Fully proportional parliamentary is pretty bad too, but I would rate it neither better nor worse.

 

[Mise]

So Le Pen has "temporarily resigned" from her party. How does that even work? Who is she fooling here? Surely this is a bare-faced admission that her party is toxic?

 

[AdrienIer]

No, the reason she's doing that is because the president in France is supposed to be above party politics. Officially the leader of the majority party is the prime minister. It's mostly BS but it was a smart move from her

I think MLP did a rather poor campaign in the first round but her first day in the second round campaign was excellent. She claims to be the candidate of the people against the candidate of the elite, and she made her point by spending her monday morning talking to people at a marketplace while Macron was in his ivory tower preparing his strategy (something that, IMO, he should have done on sunday).

 

[Akka]

I think MLP did a rather poor campaign in the first round but her first day in the second round campaign was excellent. She claims to be the candidate of the people against the candidate of the elite, and she made her point by spending her monday morning talking to people at a marketplace while Macron was in his ivory tower preparing his strategy (something that, IMO, he should have done on sunday).

Yeah, she can have quite a field day with this, Macron IS indeed the candidate of the elite - the BS part is when she claims she's the candidate of the people. But populism works these day (and admitedly, the "elite" have a heavy responsibility in this), so many will look past it.

Honestly, if she weren't carrying the stigma of "being FN", I'm pretty sure she would have won. Take her program, soften the anti-EU part and put it in the hand of a party with a clean history, and it's going to have a pretty big appeal.

 

[Agent327]

You've described why instant run-off voting would be useful.

Actually, quite the opposite. But perhaps it's useful in the US, where only 2 parties really compete? See also what Akka just said.

This reasoning is pretty weird.
Cutting the amount of voting rounds is pretty low on the reasons to chose a system, and we certainly prefer to have healthy plurality of political parties over it.

From a democratic point of view plurality would be preferable to duality. Now, a presidential election is a bit of a special case, since you can only have one winner. But even in the US candidates rarely - if ever - get a majority of voters behind them. It's all about the electors. It's a bit remindful of the 'block voting' process in the Roman republic.

 

[Akka]

Now we're hearing about Russian hackers targeting Macron's campaign.
Not unexpected considering how Putin and MLP are buddies with each others, but still rather amusing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then we're discussing lesser evils, unfortunately.

Find me the election which isn't.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm noticing some familiar themes in the rise of these right-wing populists in the West. They are rising to prominence on the backs of an alliance between the desperate and the bigots.

That's basically the history of populism all over.

Semi-related question: Are we seeing proof the Cold-War era philosophy of the domino effect right now? First we saw the vote to leave the EU in the UK which led to May rising to the office of Prime Minister, then the election of Trump in the US, and now possibly the election of Le Pen in France. If Le Pen does end up winning, what are the chances this domino effect of right-wing populism will spill over into Germany next?

To be laconic, I'll let my bloding speak for me.

The French definitely have the right idea, holding their voting on a Sunday. Even better would be a national holiday.

Here in the Formerly Bolivarian Republic of Kirchneristan (FUBAR, I mean, FBRK) the day after the election (which is always a Sunday) is a school holiday. The reason is twofold: first because schools are used as ready-made voting centres and they have to be officially cleaned up, second because if you are registered to vote somewhere other than you live, then you have the full day to return (you can be exempted from the obligation to vote if you are >500 km. away or you're over 70 years of age IIRC, or physically or mentally handicapped) without your children missing a day of class, and you can get the day off at work without getting fired.

Maybe, but it's still vastly superior to the US system (and the anglo-saxon system in general).

There's no such thing as a unified Anglo-Saxon system. Still, I don't count the US as a democracy.

Find me the election which isn't.

Well, many here have been pro-Chavist, pro-Putin, pro-Islamic terrorism madness v. relatively sane mediocrity. Which has to do for now, unless you consider all forms of indirect government to be inherently bad.

 

[Nials]

I'll stick my neck out and say Macron wins come May 7th beating Le Pen, but I'm not going to bet money..

That's my best guess as well.

Since I don't have knowledge that the bookmakers do not have, I won't be making any bets