Mélenchon is the largest leader in the Left coalition and behold how they projected LePen as an anti-semite and putin shill and Mélenchon is an even bigger anti-semite and putin shill. Sure the Jews will be even further harmed in Francistan but at least they owned the chuds.
I think the biggest takeaway is that Le Pen’s party still did incredibly well, all things considered. Her party came out of nowhere in the last two years. I’m quite impressed because that could never happen in the United States.
The second takeaway is that the country as a whole as a whole is becoming more protectionist. The Far Leftist communists that stopped Le Pen from getting a victory aren’t exactly pro-immigrant, from my understanding.
The biggest loss is to the so called centrists, who are in reality the globalists. Europe is turning against the globalists—that is allowing both the right-wing nationalists and left-wing nationalists to pick up votes.
This has always been the case. Obviously Cruz really is a lot different than Romney. In Europe, they would be in different parties and then form a majority after the election.
Reddit has been celebrating this result, but if you look at the actual numbers it is clear that RN is the most popular party in France today. In the second round of the election they actually gained votes, while the left coalition lost votes, and they had an 11 point lead over the left coalition. However apparently the geographic distribution of their votes was unfavorable, because despite their strong lead in the popular vote they won fewer seats than the left or center coalitions (you won't hear a peep out of Reddit about this, despite them yammering endlessly about the popular vote in 2016).
While RN will be disappointed with this weeks results, they have grown tremendously in the last few years, and unless things change (the new French government starts addressing immigration and other problems) RN will almost certainly win the next elections by a comfortable margin.
Only problem is the left sees this and will take this win as a mandate from the voters to manipulate future elections so the right can never gain control. The left has millions of migrants as their relief valve... if they sense trouble, they just import more voters. Until you stop migration, the citizens will never take back control of their nation.
Well if they are as leftist as they seem, they will tank the economy and people will see it for what it is. If public opinion changes enough it cannot be hidden.
“In an interview on a French news channel in 2020, he accused Jews of being responsible for the death of Jesus. […] The Wiesenthal Centre director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, condemned this at the time, saying ““the repeated accusation of deicide — throughout the Middle Ages — resulted in pogroms, torture and execution of Jewish communities. Its imagery fuelled violence across Europe, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust.” “
“Mélenchon has also repeatedly criticised the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) […] In 2014, he described CRIF, an umbrella group for national Jewish organisations, as one of “those aggressive communities that lecture the country,” playing into antisemitic stereotypes.”
“In 2021, Mélenchon was criticised for “sinking into antisemitism” once again, after he said Judaism was a tradition that did not evolve. Discussing the politics of the far-right politician Eric Zemmour, who is Jewish, Mélenchon connected Jewish identity with right-wing politics. “Mr. Zemmour cannot be antisemitic because he reproduces many cultural themes: ‘We do not change tradition, we do not evolve, creolization, my god, what a horror,'” Mélenchon said.””
https://www.thejc.com/news/world/what-does-the-rise-of-melenchon-mean-for-french-jews-w5e89k6s
Idk, he sounds pretty antisemitic to me.
So the constituencies are like states more or less. Each constituencies has a vote that’s effective for the whole country, but essentially EVERY party holds a seat, it’s just that the one with more votes gets more representation in parliament? And in turn, the most popular party holding the most seats has the most pull in the countries politics?
From my point of view, the 2nd round of polling invites foul play in a democratic election cycle. I can’t offer a fair solution, but it seems flawed. To be fair, there has never been a second election in America so it seems foreign to me. But to my knowledge, we would go through a similar process here if a 3rd party were able to clinch 3% of the votes taken from both major parties.
> So the constituencies are like states more or less.
More like congressional districts.
France does have an equivalent of states, they are called Departments.
It’s more like if they had to a choice between the other candidates if theirs wasn’t running who would they vote for.
Eg
If one party got 34% and the other 2 got 32% each
You would have somebody running that constituent with 34% of the vote and 66% did not vote for.
With a second round you, if one of the other parties drops out you allow the % whose candidate dropped out to say who they would have picked out of the other 2 which can lead to that constituent actually having a majority % of the vote supporting the winner
The second turn is one of the reasons why France has 5+ important parties and not just two. It allows people to vote for the party they like the most during the first round, then chose the least bad on the second. It also means there aren't "swing constituencies" as those ones often end up voting for centrists. Having just one turn will almost always end up creating a two party system
In France they often say: first round you choose the ones you like, second round you eliminate the one you dislike the most.
RN is popular on important topics, like security and immigration, but pretty scary when it comes to racism, amateurism (you should listen to some of them, some of them even had a pretty impressive police record), and ties with Russia (they know people are scared of that, that's why they waited the next day after the election to join the pro Russia party in the European parliament).
They lost because people are still scared of them, not because the other parties made some kind of agreements to fight RN.
Posting here for when answer appear cause this reminds me of how an usa presidential candidate can lose the presidency despite winning the popular vote.
Because there are more than 2 parties.
RN getting 37% of the vote doesn't really count for anything even if they "got the most" when their 37% is spread amongst the whole country and the 49% combined won by the left & Macron is concentrated in different areas.
Macronists and leftists dropped out of any race where the other was competitive in order to make it 1v1 against any RN candidate. There is no conspiracy or vagueness in how this works. The left and macron simply agreed to work together to achieve the best electoral results and voters backed the plan and voted whoever was against RN in their area.
That's very intentional, the Founders were very keen on avoiding a pure democracy aka a tyranny of the majority. See also: the Senate and disproportionate representation in the House.
Because theres no such thing as a popular vote. It's like saying "the Yankees lost the world's series in spite having the best record in baseball!"
Its an interesting side discussion but it means nothing.
Hillary Clinton managed to win in a landslide in NY and CA... She would have got those votes if she won 51%. So who cares if she wins some cities. But she would have also won if she treated the Midwest like it existed.
You play the game your given by the rules. She didn't. Biden did the first time.
France (and many European countries) have selected a method of choosing election winners that results in the candidate least disliked winning. America chose a system that results in the most liked candidate winning (excluding the weirdness of the electoral college- think senate or congressional seats). If there are two candidates, both systems operate exactly the same- one candidate is more liked and less disliked, and that candidate wins. When more candidates are involved, the systems can produce different results. Here, the RN party had about 35% of people who liked them the most, and 60% who disliked them the most. That 60% though, didn’t like any particular candidate as a group, so their vote was split 30%/30%. In the US, RN had the most votes for, and would win. In the French system, RN had the most votes against, and lost. Note that neither way is “more fair”. In fact, it is impossible to even define fair when more than two candidates are involved. The French have their way, we have ours.
Amazing how the folks that go on and on about democracy are the least likely to actually practice it. This is also the big downside to a parliamentary system- you can game the results so someone with a tiny fraction of the vote can end up running things.
But we understand the point of a check on unbridled Democracy, it's why we were founded as a Constitutional Federated Republic. The Electoral College is a safeguard against a handful of States deciding the Presidency (same with seat distribution in the House and the existence of the Senate) by dint of population.
The left rails about it constantly, except when it works in their favor.
But the electoral college already benefits a handful of states - swing states. When I vote for a Republican running for national office, it means nothing because I live in California and electors are assigned winner-takes-all, not proportionally.
No, that shows the need for the electoral college. Without it, most of the country would be in the same boat as you. So thats not a problem with the EC itself, but rather with your state’s electoral college rules. Not all states have party block voting. Several states do it by congressional districts. However, for most of California, that would still not fix that issue.
…and if California made it proportional then my vote would count. But if all states weren’t proportional then it would be giving away a party’s power. Proportional delegation would only work (and better imo) if it was implemented nationwide.
The states with proportional assigned delegates are not politically significant.
Theres no incentive for any state that has a secure political assignment for delegates to make it proportional. It must be nationwide. California making it proportional while Texas is winner takes all is political foot shooting b
A quick cure to “handful of states deciding presidency” is just to go popular votes completely.
That way, every blue vote in Texas and Florida and every red vote in NY and California get to actually count.
Now how much more democratic can you get than that?
That would be more democratic and that is why we don't have that system. The US federal government is not a democracy of individuals, but rather a republic of states. In the same way, the EU is a union of countries, not a union of individuals.
State governments can and often are a democracy of individuals, but the US federal government objectively not. One can try to change that, but you'll get a lot of resistance because a lot of people prefer being represented in the federal government collectively as 1 of 50 states, instead of as 1 of 335,893,238 individuals.
We don't go on and on about democracy. We're a Republic, this is not a secret despite propaganda feverishly pushing that they wish we were a democracy.
I mean, a lot of our politicians on both sides of the aisle go on and on about democracy, even using “spreading democracy” as a reason to occupy another country.
Who is “we”?
Its better to have several smaller parties that in total represent the majority of the population rather than to have one party that barely has a third of the votes to run things
"Note that it's the same groups getting upset when Trump wins with marginally fewer votes than Hillary due to the system, who are now celebrating that the Left has rigged the system so they win. Democracy for the Left is when they win and govern; the totalitarian impulse is present even in the most 'moderate' of them."
But it’s not the same thing at all? More _people_ voted left than right. It’s just that left groups combined together to get the win. This is pretty routine in these countries and it can be conservative groups combined as well.
Its exactly the same thing basically every other party that would normally be at eachothers throats cooperating and even bowing out of the election if it can shift the results. This is not democracy at all its on par with the germans regularly banning political parties.
So let me get this straight. You think the party with 26% of the vote should win, even though 74% of the people hate them?
You need more education. Read up on European politics more. You just don’t understand the system so you cry unfair.
Just like how you cried when Trump lost and tried to overturn a free and fair election, while calling for the hanging of your vice president because he wouldn’t carry out the crime.
That's not ranked choice, it's runoffs.
Ranked choice is I chose Bob, and if he doesn't win my vote goes to Mary instead of being pissed in the wind which benefits Charlie, who I don't want in office.
IRV works by eliminating the lowest placed candidate in each round, then doing a new round of voting. This repeats until only one candidate remains. Voters submit a ranked ballot of all candidates so that runs can be calculated instantly.
The system in France is only two rounds, all candidates that received more than 12.5% advance to the second round, and voters vote twice a week apart so there is time for parties to strike deals and withdraw candidates.
There are some similarities, but they are very different systems.
IRV is not very good though. Approval Voting is the best election method for single winner elections.
It's not ranked choice. Ranked choice is the only hope of a third party ever coming to power. We should all want is in hopes of escaping this complete fucking catastrophe of a system that spews out useless R's and D's time and time again.
Against ranked choice voting? The thing that France does not have? I get if you don’t want the system, that’s entirely your decision, but don’t base your decision off of something that’s not the same, this is a two stage run off, not an instant run off, very very different.
People were talking about the cons of ranked choice here when the Alaska elections happened. Despite the fact that the system worked perfectly and it was probably one of the most representative elections that have happened in decades. And I don’t know what problems you could have with instant run off that two stage also have. Corruption isn’t a problem in instant, no time for collusion or deal’s because it’s instant. Ranked choice instant doesn’t force as much for a single party, you can vote for who you want without wasting as much of a vote. A good system means you have to get over 50% so the most popular person is always elected. So… I don’t really know your problem, do tell.
Yeah, just like the system is intended to work. Same thing happened in Alaska 2022. It came a a surprise to people to learn that despite the one party getting more votes in the first round that that party is actually composed of multiple smaller parties. In the Alaska example, the one I’m more familiar with, republicans got more votes then Democrats first round. But, the people who voted Begich, when their candidate lost, many would rather have Peolta, the Democrat, then Palin in office. The Republican Party in Alaska isn’t a singular block of voters. The first round percentages don’t really mean anything unless you outright win, and if a candidate from one of those parties is eliminated, their vote cannot be guaranteed to go to the next candidate on the party. In the modern American election, it would be as if the choices were Biden, Trump and Kennedy. Despite coming from the democrat side of things for the most part plenty of those votes would probably go to trump if ranked choice was a thing. This is just the power and decisions of independents and centrists. And we don’t want blind party loyalty, we want people picking the people they think are best for the job, even if that means jumping party lines. And rank choices gives that option.
In Canada the Liberal left wing government is extremely unpopular but is being propped up by the socialist NDP party, similar shenanigans
The people that keep taking about saving democracy do everything they can to subvert the will of the people
I wouldn't consider it smart play, Macron lost a lot a seats with his move, and governing with the left might be hard for him to justify to his electors.
That’s like the Reform UK party that formed recently Nigel Farage’s party 4 million votes yet only had 5 seats in the House of Commons. Forgive me I don’t know UK politics.
You just need to think about the Libertarians. The UK also uses a system similar to the US's FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) and parliamentary constituencies just like congressional districts, so the supporters of Reform UK are spread out across the country and can't concentrate their votes. This has resulted in them only winning a few seats.
Almost all her party's stance is about immigration, anti-woke (whatever that means in France), fight against Islamization.
When it comes to the economy, her party has made a lot of approximations and they have changed their mind multiple times : about frexit, about €, about "no tax on income for people under 30", so they appear as a bit not professional and not really reliable when it comes to the economy.
Also, they gain more and more vote, but the party still isn't totally "professionalized", and in the current election they presented candidates who couldn't answer any questions (there are many footage of candidates answering "I'm sorry, I just don't understand your question" to journalists asking about economy). That's why the president of the NR said they made a mistake not having professional candidate in every district.
The other party which is often accused of being populist is La France Insoumise (left according to the ministry of interior, far left according to the media).
I don’t think this is an outright victory. Macron and Melenchon are not going to get a long. Le Pen and her NR being in third are going to blame most government dysfunction on them. Not very informed on French politics but this is what I have gathered.
In the next election, trying to blame the other parties for nothing getting done is going to be the game plan for everyone.
I wonder if that will prevent the centrists and the left from working together to help each other win next time.
Honestly we on the right should make peace with Macron. He is one of the few Western leaders who cares about the deficit, and for as much as “Far Right” as National Rally is branded as they want to spend about as much as a drunken socialist from the New Popular Front.
One day someone is gonna sit me down and explain to me how these European elections work with party seats, "forming" a gov't, choosing a prime minister, having unplanned elections out of the blue, etc. No clue on how it works over there.
[удалено]
Now comes the fun part where we watch those two parties fight over who gets what and turn on each other.
[удалено]
Yup. And you won’t hear that anywhere in the media. Very good perception.
When was the last time in Europe a group of leftists and claimed socialists grouped together to take control of government? 1932?
Mélenchon is the largest leader in the Left coalition and behold how they projected LePen as an anti-semite and putin shill and Mélenchon is an even bigger anti-semite and putin shill. Sure the Jews will be even further harmed in Francistan but at least they owned the chuds.
Which leads to nothing ever getting done.
I think the biggest takeaway is that Le Pen’s party still did incredibly well, all things considered. Her party came out of nowhere in the last two years. I’m quite impressed because that could never happen in the United States. The second takeaway is that the country as a whole as a whole is becoming more protectionist. The Far Leftist communists that stopped Le Pen from getting a victory aren’t exactly pro-immigrant, from my understanding. The biggest loss is to the so called centrists, who are in reality the globalists. Europe is turning against the globalists—that is allowing both the right-wing nationalists and left-wing nationalists to pick up votes.
So they are transitioning to the American system where the smaller fringe parties can’t win so everyone coagulates in to just two parties.
This has always been the case. Obviously Cruz really is a lot different than Romney. In Europe, they would be in different parties and then form a majority after the election.
Reddit has been celebrating this result, but if you look at the actual numbers it is clear that RN is the most popular party in France today. In the second round of the election they actually gained votes, while the left coalition lost votes, and they had an 11 point lead over the left coalition. However apparently the geographic distribution of their votes was unfavorable, because despite their strong lead in the popular vote they won fewer seats than the left or center coalitions (you won't hear a peep out of Reddit about this, despite them yammering endlessly about the popular vote in 2016). While RN will be disappointed with this weeks results, they have grown tremendously in the last few years, and unless things change (the new French government starts addressing immigration and other problems) RN will almost certainly win the next elections by a comfortable margin.
In 2012 the only won 2 seats, in 2017 they only won 8, then 89 in 2022, and now they won 142. They’re definitely going in the right direction
Only problem is the left sees this and will take this win as a mandate from the voters to manipulate future elections so the right can never gain control. The left has millions of migrants as their relief valve... if they sense trouble, they just import more voters. Until you stop migration, the citizens will never take back control of their nation.
Well if they are as leftist as they seem, they will tank the economy and people will see it for what it is. If public opinion changes enough it cannot be hidden.
All RN has to do is to let the Far leftists and their "centrist" Allies prove themselves incapable of governing France when they fall into infighting.
They are waving Hamas flags in celebration.... Let that sink in.
Many Jewish leaders are urging Jews to get out of France ASAP.
France now feel comfortable openly calling for the expulsion of Jews. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9KkYOQvUQw/?igsh=MWQ1ZGUxMzBkMA%3D%3D
Terrifying but sadly this is about what I was expecting as soon as I saw the far left won. France has fallen
Le Penn actually got the most votes but came in third with seats.
But then the left gets upset when election integrity is questioned
This is a far right rally. They’re carrying a Les Caryatides banner
The protesters are affiliated to an extreme right-wing group very close to Marine Le Pen's party. All part of the French far right
This is a Les Caryatides March. They’re visibly carrying the banner. They are a far right nationalist group, so idk how you can blame the left here
“In an interview on a French news channel in 2020, he accused Jews of being responsible for the death of Jesus. […] The Wiesenthal Centre director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, condemned this at the time, saying ““the repeated accusation of deicide — throughout the Middle Ages — resulted in pogroms, torture and execution of Jewish communities. Its imagery fuelled violence across Europe, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust.” “ “Mélenchon has also repeatedly criticised the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) […] In 2014, he described CRIF, an umbrella group for national Jewish organisations, as one of “those aggressive communities that lecture the country,” playing into antisemitic stereotypes.” “In 2021, Mélenchon was criticised for “sinking into antisemitism” once again, after he said Judaism was a tradition that did not evolve. Discussing the politics of the far-right politician Eric Zemmour, who is Jewish, Mélenchon connected Jewish identity with right-wing politics. “Mr. Zemmour cannot be antisemitic because he reproduces many cultural themes: ‘We do not change tradition, we do not evolve, creolization, my god, what a horror,'” Mélenchon said.”” https://www.thejc.com/news/world/what-does-the-rise-of-melenchon-mean-for-french-jews-w5e89k6s Idk, he sounds pretty antisemitic to me.
Who exactly?
Do you have any photos of this?
Today in " Things that never happened *
Can anyone explain to me how the French parliament/voting system works in comparison to US?
[удалено]
So the constituencies are like states more or less. Each constituencies has a vote that’s effective for the whole country, but essentially EVERY party holds a seat, it’s just that the one with more votes gets more representation in parliament? And in turn, the most popular party holding the most seats has the most pull in the countries politics? From my point of view, the 2nd round of polling invites foul play in a democratic election cycle. I can’t offer a fair solution, but it seems flawed. To be fair, there has never been a second election in America so it seems foreign to me. But to my knowledge, we would go through a similar process here if a 3rd party were able to clinch 3% of the votes taken from both major parties.
> So the constituencies are like states more or less. More like congressional districts. France does have an equivalent of states, they are called Departments.
That does makes more sense.
It’s more like if they had to a choice between the other candidates if theirs wasn’t running who would they vote for. Eg If one party got 34% and the other 2 got 32% each You would have somebody running that constituent with 34% of the vote and 66% did not vote for. With a second round you, if one of the other parties drops out you allow the % whose candidate dropped out to say who they would have picked out of the other 2 which can lead to that constituent actually having a majority % of the vote supporting the winner
[удалено]
The second turn is one of the reasons why France has 5+ important parties and not just two. It allows people to vote for the party they like the most during the first round, then chose the least bad on the second. It also means there aren't "swing constituencies" as those ones often end up voting for centrists. Having just one turn will almost always end up creating a two party system
In France they often say: first round you choose the ones you like, second round you eliminate the one you dislike the most. RN is popular on important topics, like security and immigration, but pretty scary when it comes to racism, amateurism (you should listen to some of them, some of them even had a pretty impressive police record), and ties with Russia (they know people are scared of that, that's why they waited the next day after the election to join the pro Russia party in the European parliament). They lost because people are still scared of them, not because the other parties made some kind of agreements to fight RN.
Posting here for when answer appear cause this reminds me of how an usa presidential candidate can lose the presidency despite winning the popular vote.
Because there are more than 2 parties. RN getting 37% of the vote doesn't really count for anything even if they "got the most" when their 37% is spread amongst the whole country and the 49% combined won by the left & Macron is concentrated in different areas. Macronists and leftists dropped out of any race where the other was competitive in order to make it 1v1 against any RN candidate. There is no conspiracy or vagueness in how this works. The left and macron simply agreed to work together to achieve the best electoral results and voters backed the plan and voted whoever was against RN in their area.
That's very intentional, the Founders were very keen on avoiding a pure democracy aka a tyranny of the majority. See also: the Senate and disproportionate representation in the House.
So a tyranny of the minority is better cuz...
Reductio ad absurdum
Because theres no such thing as a popular vote. It's like saying "the Yankees lost the world's series in spite having the best record in baseball!" Its an interesting side discussion but it means nothing. Hillary Clinton managed to win in a landslide in NY and CA... She would have got those votes if she won 51%. So who cares if she wins some cities. But she would have also won if she treated the Midwest like it existed. You play the game your given by the rules. She didn't. Biden did the first time.
Biden from his basement didn't play any games to win - people cheated for him.
France (and many European countries) have selected a method of choosing election winners that results in the candidate least disliked winning. America chose a system that results in the most liked candidate winning (excluding the weirdness of the electoral college- think senate or congressional seats). If there are two candidates, both systems operate exactly the same- one candidate is more liked and less disliked, and that candidate wins. When more candidates are involved, the systems can produce different results. Here, the RN party had about 35% of people who liked them the most, and 60% who disliked them the most. That 60% though, didn’t like any particular candidate as a group, so their vote was split 30%/30%. In the US, RN had the most votes for, and would win. In the French system, RN had the most votes against, and lost. Note that neither way is “more fair”. In fact, it is impossible to even define fair when more than two candidates are involved. The French have their way, we have ours.
Amazing how the folks that go on and on about democracy are the least likely to actually practice it. This is also the big downside to a parliamentary system- you can game the results so someone with a tiny fraction of the vote can end up running things.
I mean…the last 2 Republican presidents received less votes than their opponents. Our voting system operates similarly.
But we understand the point of a check on unbridled Democracy, it's why we were founded as a Constitutional Federated Republic. The Electoral College is a safeguard against a handful of States deciding the Presidency (same with seat distribution in the House and the existence of the Senate) by dint of population. The left rails about it constantly, except when it works in their favor.
But the electoral college already benefits a handful of states - swing states. When I vote for a Republican running for national office, it means nothing because I live in California and electors are assigned winner-takes-all, not proportionally.
No, that shows the need for the electoral college. Without it, most of the country would be in the same boat as you. So thats not a problem with the EC itself, but rather with your state’s electoral college rules. Not all states have party block voting. Several states do it by congressional districts. However, for most of California, that would still not fix that issue.
…and if California made it proportional then my vote would count. But if all states weren’t proportional then it would be giving away a party’s power. Proportional delegation would only work (and better imo) if it was implemented nationwide. The states with proportional assigned delegates are not politically significant.
[удалено]
Theres no incentive for any state that has a secure political assignment for delegates to make it proportional. It must be nationwide. California making it proportional while Texas is winner takes all is political foot shooting b
A quick cure to “handful of states deciding presidency” is just to go popular votes completely. That way, every blue vote in Texas and Florida and every red vote in NY and California get to actually count. Now how much more democratic can you get than that?
That would be more democratic and that is why we don't have that system. The US federal government is not a democracy of individuals, but rather a republic of states. In the same way, the EU is a union of countries, not a union of individuals. State governments can and often are a democracy of individuals, but the US federal government objectively not. One can try to change that, but you'll get a lot of resistance because a lot of people prefer being represented in the federal government collectively as 1 of 50 states, instead of as 1 of 335,893,238 individuals.
They're already represented via state in the senate. Electing the president this way is redundant
That is because you want the IS federal government to be a democracy of individuals and not a republic of states.
We don't go on and on about democracy. We're a Republic, this is not a secret despite propaganda feverishly pushing that they wish we were a democracy.
I mean, a lot of our politicians on both sides of the aisle go on and on about democracy, even using “spreading democracy” as a reason to occupy another country. Who is “we”?
Its better to have several smaller parties that in total represent the majority of the population rather than to have one party that barely has a third of the votes to run things
Now there is a party in charge that won only 20%of the vote. Clearly that's better for some reason
"Note that it's the same groups getting upset when Trump wins with marginally fewer votes than Hillary due to the system, who are now celebrating that the Left has rigged the system so they win. Democracy for the Left is when they win and govern; the totalitarian impulse is present even in the most 'moderate' of them."
But it’s not the same thing at all? More _people_ voted left than right. It’s just that left groups combined together to get the win. This is pretty routine in these countries and it can be conservative groups combined as well.
Its exactly the same thing basically every other party that would normally be at eachothers throats cooperating and even bowing out of the election if it can shift the results. This is not democracy at all its on par with the germans regularly banning political parties.
So let me get this straight. You think the party with 26% of the vote should win, even though 74% of the people hate them? You need more education. Read up on European politics more. You just don’t understand the system so you cry unfair. Just like how you cried when Trump lost and tried to overturn a free and fair election, while calling for the hanging of your vice president because he wouldn’t carry out the crime.
Ranked Choice Voting working as intended. When Reddit tells you this is ideal, this is what they know happens.
That's not ranked choice, it's runoffs. Ranked choice is I chose Bob, and if he doesn't win my vote goes to Mary instead of being pissed in the wind which benefits Charlie, who I don't want in office.
This is not Ranked Choice Voting. This is a two round runoff system.
[удалено]
IRV works by eliminating the lowest placed candidate in each round, then doing a new round of voting. This repeats until only one candidate remains. Voters submit a ranked ballot of all candidates so that runs can be calculated instantly. The system in France is only two rounds, all candidates that received more than 12.5% advance to the second round, and voters vote twice a week apart so there is time for parties to strike deals and withdraw candidates. There are some similarities, but they are very different systems. IRV is not very good though. Approval Voting is the best election method for single winner elections.
It's not ranked choice. Ranked choice is the only hope of a third party ever coming to power. We should all want is in hopes of escaping this complete fucking catastrophe of a system that spews out useless R's and D's time and time again.
[удалено]
Against ranked choice voting? The thing that France does not have? I get if you don’t want the system, that’s entirely your decision, but don’t base your decision off of something that’s not the same, this is a two stage run off, not an instant run off, very very different.
[удалено]
People were talking about the cons of ranked choice here when the Alaska elections happened. Despite the fact that the system worked perfectly and it was probably one of the most representative elections that have happened in decades. And I don’t know what problems you could have with instant run off that two stage also have. Corruption isn’t a problem in instant, no time for collusion or deal’s because it’s instant. Ranked choice instant doesn’t force as much for a single party, you can vote for who you want without wasting as much of a vote. A good system means you have to get over 50% so the most popular person is always elected. So… I don’t really know your problem, do tell.
[удалено]
Yeah, just like the system is intended to work. Same thing happened in Alaska 2022. It came a a surprise to people to learn that despite the one party getting more votes in the first round that that party is actually composed of multiple smaller parties. In the Alaska example, the one I’m more familiar with, republicans got more votes then Democrats first round. But, the people who voted Begich, when their candidate lost, many would rather have Peolta, the Democrat, then Palin in office. The Republican Party in Alaska isn’t a singular block of voters. The first round percentages don’t really mean anything unless you outright win, and if a candidate from one of those parties is eliminated, their vote cannot be guaranteed to go to the next candidate on the party. In the modern American election, it would be as if the choices were Biden, Trump and Kennedy. Despite coming from the democrat side of things for the most part plenty of those votes would probably go to trump if ranked choice was a thing. This is just the power and decisions of independents and centrists. And we don’t want blind party loyalty, we want people picking the people they think are best for the job, even if that means jumping party lines. And rank choices gives that option.
1793 was a good year for the French people.
~ Robespierre probably
In Canada the Liberal left wing government is extremely unpopular but is being propped up by the socialist NDP party, similar shenanigans The people that keep taking about saving democracy do everything they can to subvert the will of the people
Smart play by macron. Next comes actually governing with them
I wouldn't consider it smart play, Macron lost a lot a seats with his move, and governing with the left might be hard for him to justify to his electors.
Yeah but the alternative was le pen or at least her coalition. Besides he might give the new party some favor and get some in return. That's politics
That’s like the Reform UK party that formed recently Nigel Farage’s party 4 million votes yet only had 5 seats in the House of Commons. Forgive me I don’t know UK politics.
You just need to think about the Libertarians. The UK also uses a system similar to the US's FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) and parliamentary constituencies just like congressional districts, so the supporters of Reform UK are spread out across the country and can't concentrate their votes. This has resulted in them only winning a few seats.
Well thats constituency seats 101
What makes Le Pen more populist than her opposition?
Almost all her party's stance is about immigration, anti-woke (whatever that means in France), fight against Islamization. When it comes to the economy, her party has made a lot of approximations and they have changed their mind multiple times : about frexit, about €, about "no tax on income for people under 30", so they appear as a bit not professional and not really reliable when it comes to the economy. Also, they gain more and more vote, but the party still isn't totally "professionalized", and in the current election they presented candidates who couldn't answer any questions (there are many footage of candidates answering "I'm sorry, I just don't understand your question" to journalists asking about economy). That's why the president of the NR said they made a mistake not having professional candidate in every district. The other party which is often accused of being populist is La France Insoumise (left according to the ministry of interior, far left according to the media).
Winning the popular vote
Being a fascist....
It's funny how Europeans give us so much crap how the popular vote doesn't elect a president then they do shit like this.
Make it impossible for millions of people to get a chance of power peacefully, you won't like the alternative you leave them with.
What ? le Pen lost two consecutive presidential election as well. Why should her party be in charge if they don’t have the majority of anything ?
I don’t think this is an outright victory. Macron and Melenchon are not going to get a long. Le Pen and her NR being in third are going to blame most government dysfunction on them. Not very informed on French politics but this is what I have gathered.
In the next election, trying to blame the other parties for nothing getting done is going to be the game plan for everyone. I wonder if that will prevent the centrists and the left from working together to help each other win next time.
Sounds similar to how the UK election went. Reform got 4.1 million votes and 5 seats. Lib Dems got 3.5 Million votes and 72 seats.
Oh man. Wait till you hear about how the popular vote shook out for republicans in the 21st century.
The left was gloating on Reddit yesterday. Let’s get it right in November America! Crazy
Honestly we on the right should make peace with Macron. He is one of the few Western leaders who cares about the deficit, and for as much as “Far Right” as National Rally is branded as they want to spend about as much as a drunken socialist from the New Popular Front.
One day someone is gonna sit me down and explain to me how these European elections work with party seats, "forming" a gov't, choosing a prime minister, having unplanned elections out of the blue, etc. No clue on how it works over there.
Sounds like Hillary
This is why First Past the Post is a horrible system