xkcd

by **Djehutynakht** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:59 am UTC

So... today (April 22, 2012) is the day of the French Presidential Elections.

Personally, I haven't been following it too closely except for a few names (mostly because I'm not a French resident/citizen), but... it's France, and France is relatively important, so... at the very least I suppose we should at least be knowledgeable of the outcome.

So.. yeah. Feel free to post anything about the election/discussion about the election here. Who seems to be leading, who won (eventually), etc.

That's all I have for now. Here's the Wikipedia article for anyone totally in the dark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_pre ... tion,_2012

And here's a BBC article for good measure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17801628

...I can't believe this is what I'm doing at 4 am...

by **Diadem** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

It's only the preliminary round right? The real fireworks won't start until next round.

(Of course I remember that being said before, and then all left-wing candidates got knocked out in the first round. Though that doesn't seem likely now.)

by **jules.LT** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:It's only the preliminary round right? The real fireworks won't start until next round.

(Of course I remember that being said before, and then all left-wing candidates got knocked out in the first round. Though that doesn't seem likely now.)

Saying "all left-wing candidates" got knocked off in the first round is misleading: only Jospin from the main left party was ever expected to be in the second round against Chirac...

by **Grop** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

This French citizen is quite disappointed by today's result

. The two favorite candidates will go to second turn, and we will have to choose between same old right wing and utterly moderate left wing.

Everything is always decided on first turn ; I predict Hollande will be elected on second turn. And nothing will change.

...

And yes, only 2002 was a real surprise, as no left-wing candidate made it to second turn.

by **Ghostbear** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Since the last post didn't say what the results were and I was curious, I went and looked it up. Hollande won the first round with 28% of the vote compared to Sarkozy's 26%. Third place got 20%. If I'm reading it right, Hollande and Sarkozy will now face just each other in another round to determine the overall winner.

by **Grop** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:If I'm reading it right, Hollande and Sarkozy will now face just each other and in another round to determine the overall winner.

I agree with your reading.

by **Mechanicus** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:24 pm UTC

It is looking like the anti-immigration, law-and-order-focussed and protectionist Front National candidate, Marine Le Pen, came a strong third, with between 18 and 20% of the vote. Wasn't expecting that. I understood that opinion polls put her and her party much further back.

by **Diadem** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Diadem wrote:It's only the preliminary round right? The real fireworks won't start until next round.

(Of course I remember that being said before, and then all left-wing candidates got knocked out in the first round. Though that doesn't seem likely now.)

Saying "all left-wing candidates" got knocked off in the first round is misleading: only Jospin from the main left party was ever expected to be in the second round against Chirac...

Misleading? Why? The big shock was not that Jospin didn't make it, but that none of the left-wing candidates made it. Turning the 2nd round into right-wing vs. even more ring-wing.

It neatly demonstrated the problem with the French presidential elections. Their system is pretty much "First two past the post", which is better than "first past the post" but still faces the same issues. Jospin would certainly have made it to the 2nd round if voters had been allowed to give a 2nd preference.

Anyway, that didn't happen this election. The two expected candidates made it. Boring.

by **jules.LT** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

Mechanicus wrote:It is looking like the anti-immigration, law-and-order-focussed and protectionist Front National candidate, Marine Le Pen, came a strong third, with between 18 and 20% of the vote. Wasn't expecting that. I understood that opinion polls put her and her party much further back.

That's partly because many people are ashamed of voting for her, which the pollsters even have to account for.

Diadem wrote:The big shock was not that Jospin didn't make it, but that none of the left-wing candidates made it.

The big shock was that Jospin didn't make it. No other left-wing party was expected to have a shot at the second round, same as Le Pen.

by **Diadem** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:06 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Diadem wrote:The big shock was not that Jospin didn't make it, but that none of the left-wing candidates made it.

The big shock was that Jospin didn't make it. No other left-wing party was expected to have a shot at the second round, same as Le Pen.

Well Jospin didn't make it in most of the earlier elections either. Nor did he make it this election. No one is surprised about that. He wasn't on the ballot, after all.

The upheaval was that no left-wing candidate made it. Not that any particular one didn't make it. Sure Jospin was the only one expected to make it. But that's not the point, because it wasn't about the person. It could have been any other left-wing candidate there instead of him and the result would have been equally shocking.

Mechanicus wrote:It is looking like the anti-immigration, law-and-order-focussed and protectionist Front National candidate, Marine Le Pen, came a strong third, with between 18 and 20% of the vote. Wasn't expecting that. I understood that opinion polls put her and her party much further back.

I don't find that surprising at all. Similar parties get similar results in most other European country. Italy, Austria, The Netherlands, Belgium, UK, Denmark, Norway, the list goes on. Meanwhile in the US they are a major power in the Republican party, with probably a similar percentage of the population agreeing with such policies.

by **Grop** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:56 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:The upheaval was that no left-wing candidate made it. Not that any particular one didn't make it. Sure Jospin was the only one expected to make it. But that's not the point, because it wasn't about the person. It could have been any other left-wing candidate there instead of him and the result would have been equally shocking.

I disagree on this. Lionel Jospin was a popular person, and that was the reason everyone expected him to be elected. Some candidates are less charismatic (such as Segolene Royal in 2007, or François Hollande today).

Lionel Jospin not being elected in 2002, and not making it to second turn, was a real shock because he was really popular. But we mostly remembered how FN came to second turn, and how Chirac was elected with a gigantic score.

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:18 am UTC

The far right doesn't get anywhere near the share of the vote in the UK as it does in other European countries (even with people swallowing what the Daily Mail tells them over here). Unless you're saying FN is the French equivalent of the Conservative Party, which I'd disagree with.

by **jules.LT** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:40 pm UTC

Grop wrote:Lionel Jospin was a popular person, and that was the reason everyone expected him to be elected. Some candidates are less charismatic (such as Segolene Royal in 2007, or François Hollande today).

The reason each of them was expected on the second round isn't because of their personal popularity, it's because they were the chosen representatives of the PS.

Diadem wrote:It could have been any other left-wing candidate

It could only be the PS candidate, and that was him.
Any other left-wing party making it to the second round would have been just as shocking as the FN taking a spot.
Now please leave it at that, Diadem. You obviously don't know much about French politics.

Diadem wrote:It neatly demonstrated the problem with the French presidential elections. Their system is pretty much "First two past the post", which is better than "first past the post" but still faces the same issues.

Actually, it works more like a two-party system with the minor parties participating only to show their strength before the 2nd round and the coming parliamentary elections. 2002 was an anomaly.

by **++$_** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

From way over here in the US, I can't really differentiate between Sarkozy and Hollande. But I can tell that Le Pen is insane. If 20% of people are voting for her, for any reason, you have a problem brewing, which you need to do something about. Otherwise you could become like us. :roll:

by **Ormurinn** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:39 pm UTC

++$_ wrote:From way over here in the US, I can't really differentiate between Sarkozy and Hollande. But I can tell that Le Pen is insane. If 20% of people are voting for her, for any reason, you have a problem brewing, which you need to do something about. Otherwise you could become like us.

I don't know about the FN, but here in the UK a lot of people vote BNP because they're the only "Mainstream" Party that proposes anything aproaching left-of-centre economics.

by **jules.LT** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:I don't know about the FN, but here in the UK a lot of people vote BNP because they're the only "Mainstream" Party that proposes anything aproaching left-of-centre economics.

Would everyone agree to call the BNP "mainstream", though?
At first glance, their "Third position" looks only remotely like an economic platform. Much like what the FN has to say about economics.

by **bigglesworth** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

Some people I was talking to were worried about how Hollande would treat the EU and the Euro. This isn't something I'd heard of before (I thought of him as how you'd expect a left of centre French politician to be).

by **Ormurinn** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:33 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:I don't know about the FN, but here in the UK a lot of people vote BNP because they're the only "Mainstream" Party that proposes anything aproaching left-of-centre economics.

Would everyone agree to call the BNP "mainstream", though?
At first glance, their "Third position" looks only remotely like an economic platform. Much like what the FN has to say about economics.

The BNP have no seats in parliament, but they're a household name - as opposed to Respect, who have a seat, but who no-ones ever heard of.

As for their economic policy, they want a return to protectionism, re-nationalisation of the railways, and they want to bring the troops home. They're worth voting for on the face of it even if you disagree with halting immigration - and most people in the country do want at the very least a reduction in immigration.

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
++$_ wrote:From way over here in the US, I can't really differentiate between Sarkozy and Hollande. But I can tell that Le Pen is insane. If 20% of people are voting for her, for any reason, you have a problem brewing, which you need to do something about. Otherwise you could become like us.

I don't know about the FN, but here in the UK a lot of people vote BNP because they're the only "Mainstream" Party that proposes anything aproaching left-of-centre economics.

People vote for the BNP for one reason only, because they can't see past their own bigotry.

by **Ormurinn** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:
++$_ wrote:From way over here in the US, I can't really differentiate between Sarkozy and Hollande. But I can tell that Le Pen is insane. If 20% of people are voting for her, for any reason, you have a problem brewing, which you need to do something about. Otherwise you could become like us.

I don't know about the FN, but here in the UK a lot of people vote BNP because they're the only "Mainstream" Party that proposes anything aproaching left-of-centre economics.

People vote for the BNP for one reason only, because they can't see past their own bigotry.

I'm sure I can come up with similar "profound" epithets about your political party of choice. They would likely be as facile and inaccurate.

by **bigglesworth** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:54 pm UTC

Yeah, while the BNP truly is filled with a large number of unsavoury bigots, I am aware of people who disagree with that aspect but see the votes for them as sending a message to the major parties about being unhappy with their policies.

by **Diadem** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Diadem wrote:It could have been any other left-wing candidate

It could only be the PS candidate, and that was him.
Any other left-wing party making it to the second round would have been just as shocking as the FN taking a spot.
Now please leave it at that, Diadem. You obviously don't know much about French politics.
Diadem wrote:It neatly demonstrated the problem with the French presidential elections. Their system is pretty much "First two past the post", which is better than "first past the post" but still faces the same issues.

Actually, it works more like a two-party system with the minor parties participating only to show their strength before the 2nd round and the coming parliamentary elections. 2002 was an anomaly.

Good job contradicting yourself. Seems like you're actually agreeing with what I said but for some reason still want to argue against it.

Also, yes, first two past the post implies a semi-two party system. That's only logical. It's still a bad system. With run-off voting at least one left-wing candidate would have made it in 2002.

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:56 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Yeah, while the BNP truly is filled with a large number of unsavoury bigots, I am aware of people who disagree with that aspect but see the votes for them as sending a message to the major parties about being unhappy with their policies.

You can choose plenty of fringe parties to vote for without picking the party whose main philosophy is that everyone who isn't Caucasian should leave the country. The idea that the BNP is a choice for a protest vote is laughable.

by **Ormurinn** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:03 am UTC

charliepanayi wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:Yeah, while the BNP truly is filled with a large number of unsavoury bigots, I am aware of people who disagree with that aspect but see the votes for them as sending a message to the major parties about being unhappy with their policies.

You can choose plenty of fringe parties to vote for without picking the party whose main philosophy is that everyone who isn't Caucasian should leave the country. The idea that the BNP is a choice for a protest vote is laughable.

Officially the BNP would just halt immigration and provide funds to immigrants to help them resettle in other countries. Since immigration is one of the average voter's biggest concerns, you can't just dismiss this out of hand. People aren't choosing the BNP as a protest vote, they're doing it because they actually agree with some of their policies - and there are reaons to do so other than bigotry.

by **charliepanayi** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:05 am UTC

Yeah, because they're either bigoted or have been conditioned to believe that those foreigner types are treated better than they are. Though how anyone can swallow the daily Murdoch/Dacre/Desmond diet of rubbish is beyond me.

by **Ormurinn** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:10 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:Yeah, because they're either bigoted or have been conditioned to believe that those foreigner types are treated better than they are. Though how anyone can swallow the daily Murdoch/Dacre/Desmond diet of rubbish is beyond me.

If you honestly believe the only reason anyone could possibly consider immigration to be an issue is bigotry, you're so far down the rabbit hole I doubt you'll ever get out. I can take solace from the fact that the majority of the electorate believe otherwise.

by **charliepanayi** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:57 pm UTC

The majority are sometimes (often) wrong.

by **Ormurinn** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:54 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:The majority are sometimes (often) wrong.

You of course, never are.

by **Ghostbear** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:09 pm UTC

I'm not particularly familiar with British politics, but it's quite possible to vote for a person or party without wholly endorsing all of their stances. Just because a party has a (possibly) abhorrent stance of immigration doesn't meant that people voting for them support it -- it just means that they find the party/candidate better than the alternative. It's also entirely possible that they think that, granted some power, that the person/party in question would have more difficulty changing policy for some stances that they dislike, while having less difficulty for stances that the person does like.

by **charliepanayi** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
charliepanayi wrote:The majority are sometimes (often) wrong.

You of course, never are.

Oh I'm frequently wrong, but I'd never vote for a party like the BNP as I'm not completely insane.

by **jules.LT** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:14 am UTC

Since Diadem won't respond to a PM, and the conversation hasn't moved on much...

Diadem wrote:Good job contradicting yourself

May I ask where?

Diadem wrote:one left-wing candidate would have made it in 2002.

You keep saying that like there were several possibilities. Only the PS candidate had a chance.

by **Ormurinn** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:27 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:Oh I'm frequently wrong, but I'd never vote for a party like the BNP as I'm not completely insane.

How's the world look from that ivory tower?

Once again, There are legitimate reasons to want the BNP in power. The people who think so may be misguided, but theres a big chunk of the UK who genuinely think the country would be better off with a Nationalist government, particularly one that actually pays attention to them. We currently have rule from London by a political elite who look down their noses at the ordinary people of Britain - In the exact same way that you are.

Which party in your opinion, should the average working John Bull cast his vote for? Parliament is such a mess at the moment that the BNP really is the best option for a lot of people. It's only thanks to constituency boundaries that they don't have any seats.

by **Jonesthe Spy** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:42 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote: It's only thanks to constituency boundaries that they don't have any seats.

Oh, I rather suspect the memory of other nationalist, supposedly-populist political parties in modern European history might have something to do with their lack of electoral success as well. Just sayin'.

by **Ormurinn** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:Oh, I rather suspect the memory of other nationalist, supposedly-populist political parties in modern European history might have something to do with their lack of electoral success as well. Just sayin'.

Oh, theres certainly a Naziphobic element to it - and the intellectually lazy equating of the two parties in a "Hurp durp Nick Griffin is Hitler" sense.

I can garuantee that if constituency boundaries in Birmingham, Leicester, Sheffield and Bradford (The areas Labour threw furthest under the bus), we'd have at least 1 Nationalist MP.

Don't take this as an endorsement of them. It's just that the blithe champagne liberal dismissal of a party that embodies real concerns rankles with me.

by **charliepanayi** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Which party in your opinion, should the average working John Bull cast his vote for? Parliament is such a mess at the moment that the BNP really is the best option for a lot of people. It's only thanks to constituency boundaries that they don't have any seats.

I think they should vote for a party that isn't a bunch of racists (not to mention misogynists and homophobes and anti-Semites and plenty else). They don't embody real concerns, they embody all that is bad about human nature. Ivory tower dismissal? Yeah it is, and it's well deserved. I don't much care for any of the three major parties at the moment anyway.

And the BNP picked up 2% of the votes at the last General Election, hardly a 'big chunk', even if plenty of people echo their xenophobia at least partially.

by **Ormurinn** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I think they should vote for a party that isn't a bunch of racists (not to mention misogynists and homophobes and anti-Semites and plenty else). They don't embody real concerns, they embody all that is bad about human nature. Ivory tower dismissal? Yeah it is, and it's well deserved. I don't much care for any of the three major parties at the moment anyway.

And the BNP picked up 2% of the votes at the last General Election, hardly a 'big chunk', even if plenty of people echo their xenophobia at least partially.

Racist like the Labour Party? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278 Or the Tories? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pr ... ist-191792

Who the hell do you think you are to dismiss swathes of working class Britons as not having real concerns? There are precious few parties who will deign to listen to the proles now - the Tories never have, and Labour have proven themselves quite happy to turn their backs on the workers in the Midlands and The North - those same communities now blighted by Ghettoisation, ethnic division and rampant poverty. How do you explain to a machine fitter who's factory has closed, who's out on the dole and can only see the same for his son and daughter, that we need more immigration to "do the jobs that Brits won't?" How do you justify, with youth unemployment at it's highest in a generation, the need to transplant entire foreign communities into their midst? Apparently you do it by dismissing those people, shouting them down with accusations of bigotry and xenophobia, and claiming they're concerns aren't real.

Have you ever lived in, or even visited, the kinds of communities that vote BNP? Have you ever tried to understand them? Cause those people have real concerns. concerns no-one but the BNP is offering a solution to. Would today's Labour Party ever advocate re-nationalisation? Would today's Conservatives take us out of the E.U? Would today's Lib Dems.. I'm having a laugh - they refuse to even do the things they pledged to do.

by **chrlat** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

I'm a National Socialist and proud :-)

by **Felstaff** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:43 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Have you ever lived in, or even visited, the kinds of communities that vote BNP?

Yes. As well seen various videos, documentaries, vox-pops, candidate interviews, and read much literature extolling the views of party members.

Yep, still loathsome. What's your point?

Ormurinn wrote:as opposed to Respect, who have a seat, but who no-ones ever heard of.

False. Everyone knows George Galloway, even if only for his catsuit antics, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, and his more recent "three arsecheek party" speech he made when he made (front page) news for winning the erstwhile safe Labour Bradford seat by doing the sensible thing and wooing the Muslim vote

He's quite the political pantomime pop-star. I'd be surprised if anyone hadn't heard of the Respect party.

by **charliepanayi** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:37 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
charliepanayi wrote:I think they should vote for a party that isn't a bunch of racists (not to mention misogynists and homophobes and anti-Semites and plenty else). They don't embody real concerns, they embody all that is bad about human nature. Ivory tower dismissal? Yeah it is, and it's well deserved. I don't much care for any of the three major parties at the moment anyway.

And the BNP picked up 2% of the votes at the last General Election, hardly a 'big chunk', even if plenty of people echo their xenophobia at least partially.

Racist like the Labour Party? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278 Or the Tories? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pr ... ist-191792

Who the hell do you think you are to dismiss swathes of working class Britons as not having real concerns? There are precious few parties who will deign to listen to the proles now - the Tories never have, and Labour have proven themselves quite happy to turn their backs on the workers in the Midlands and The North - those same communities now blighted by Ghettoisation, ethnic division and rampant poverty. How do you explain to a machine fitter who's factory has closed, who's out on the dole and can only see the same for his son and daughter, that we need more immigration to "do the jobs that Brits won't?" How do you justify, with youth unemployment at it's highest in a generation, the need to transplant entire foreign communities into their midst? Apparently you do it by dismissing those people, shouting them down with accusations of bigotry and xenophobia, and claiming they're concerns aren't real.

Have you ever lived in, or even visited, the kinds of communities that vote BNP? Have you ever tried to understand them? Cause those people have real concerns. concerns no-one but the BNP is offering a solution to. Would today's Labour Party ever advocate re-nationalisation? Would today's Conservatives take us out of the E.U? Would today's Lib Dems.. I'm having a laugh - they refuse to even do the things they pledged to do.

Spare me the outrage. You must have missed the bit where I said I didn't care much for the three major parties. Labour and the Tories shamelessly play to the Daily Mail/The Sun gallery when it comes to immigration too, and have done for years. And no, I live in the sort of bleeding heart liberal area where the BNP doesn't even bother putting up a candidate. And very glad I live there too. The BNP are vile, and you don't need to scratch their surface very much to spot that. If you can't spot that, that's your problem.

Oh yeah, and you didn't say anything about my pointing out the BNP share of the vote isn't actually very high at all.

by **Ormurinn** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:Spare me the outrage. You must have missed the bit where I said I didn't care much for the three major parties. Labour and the Tories shamelessly play to the Daily Mail/The Sun gallery when it comes to immigration too, and have done for years. And no, I live in the sort of bleeding heart liberal area where the BNP doesn't even bother putting up a candidate. And very glad I live there too. The BNP are vile, and you don't need to scratch their surface very much to spot that. If you can't spot that, that's your problem.

Oh yeah, and you didn't say anything about my pointing out the BNP share of the vote isn't actually very high at all.

The Mail and the Sun are the two best-selling papers in their categories, and their combined marketshare dwarfs that of all other papers in the UK. I have no particular love for either, in fact I despise them, but just to be clear - "the the Daily Mail/The Sun gallery" is the vast majority of the newspaper-reading public in the UK. Playing to them is actually the Duty of a government in a democratic country. That you think it's wrong to do does nothing but demonstrate your elitism.

What should our country's policy on immigration be in your view?

Fifth place in the general election doesn't seem bad to me, for a party in their position - they really have got everything set against them. But you're missing the point. I do not want the BNP to get into power! I'd like them to gain a more significant electoral presence to induce the main parties to sit up and actually listen to the people, but I hold no love for Nick Griffin or his party.

Who is online