2017 he was voted because people believed in his policies. Now because people did not want to have Le pen. However there is a term limit for two terms. So in 2027 I guess le pen will still be there and I am wondering if France will find a suitable opponent.
I really hope they do
I would rather say that in 2017 he was voted because people did not want to have Le Pen, and in 2022 she actually stood a chance because of his policies.
It’s interesting to note that people largely voted against Le Pen as opposed to Macron
The same day as Macron won the presidential election, a poll came out showing that 56% of the French want him to lose the upcoming legislative elections so he won’t be able to implement his program. Meanwhile, only 20% want him to win.
A democracy can run like this only so long.
This isn’t democracy. It’s people voting because of the implications.
Yeah, it’s sort of a hostage situation in practice.
It’s actually democracy strait out of the playbook of “managed” democracies as seen in a lot of African states. Divide the opposition, prop up some extremely divisive opponent and then style yourself as the only “sane” option.
The same strategy has kept some people with only minority support in power for decades. Russia works on a similar model.
Its alao how elections work in the United States.
I like how you casually inserted Russia in there, but not USA. That means Russia is a democracy, right?
The US democracy is also dysfunctional but in a quite different way, so it did not make much sense to mention it while explaining this specific way how a democracy can be “managed”.
I added Russia because it is a functionally similar example, but with an extra level of “make it appear like everyone is corrupt and evil, so that you can do as you please” on top of it.
You know, USA’s system works like that unlike Russia’s. Want to know how? Democrats are setup as the anti Russia, systematic discrimination party, and Republicans are the anti China, openly racist party. Each election either party gets to blame the country they are designated to hate, and people keep believing they vote to bring a change.
Navalny himself was corrupt for all the “democracy” cheering he got from Western nations that wanted. What Putin is doing right now is incredible against the monster hydra that is NATO, and Navalny probably would never have been as competent.
How is what you describe for the US anything like my description of a single strong-man or party managing their opposition and staying in power for decades? No doubt the US system is also dysfunctional, but it is dysfunctional in a quite different way as you (partially correctly) describe yourself.
Navalny is the typical controversial candidate being allowed to politically survive as he doesn’t really endangering the status quo of those in power. At least that was the case until the West started propping him up, upon which he became too dangerous as well and was disposed off.
Meanwhile, only 20% want him to win.
Actually, 44% want him to win now. Only 20% want him to win because they like his program, and 24% do not prefer his program over others, but consider that it would still be better than no program at all being efficiently implemented because of cohabitation
Only 20% of the people like his platform, the rest are just saying any platform is better than no platform. My point was that the vast majority of people does not like what he’s offering.
From what I understand, this is kind of par for the course in French politics. They just really don’t like their presidents much. Macron is actually unusually popular for a second term French president.
And do you think it might be possible that the French don’t like their presidents because the governments do a poor job representing their interests. It’s not possible to claim that you have a functioning democracy when the elected representatives consistently fail to represent the majority.
I don’t know enough French people to get an accurate feel for what the population thinks.
Last time I checked people who are happy with their government don’t have massive country wide riots all the time.
First Past the Post is tons of fun.
France doesn’t use First Past the Post though, which is why they had such diverse candidates last election.
They use a Two round system, where they hold multiple elections removing the lowest scoring candidates until one candidate has >50% of the votes
While in this case it clearly failed, it is much better than whatever is going on in the US
Isn’t a two round system more accurately described as first one election, then a second election with only the top two candidates if no one gets more than 50%?
Any candidate who gets above 12.5% of the vote goes on to the next elections. Apologies, my original explanation was a bit poor and omitted that
Then Melanchon would have been in the second round. Really it works like this
if no candidate secures an absolute majority (including blank and void ballots) of votes in the first round, a second round is held two weeks later between the two candidates who received the most votes.
There is also the parrainage system. You can be disqualified from running if you are not popular enough among sitting politicians.
What you described would be much more democratic.
Ah, good to know.
It does have the feature when people have to vote strategically. So it’s easy for politicians or the media to manipulate voters with self-fulfilling prophesies.
At the end, it’s impossible to know who would have been the popular candidate, because everyone was voting strategically.
bougette coirssant anywayy back to implementing neocolonialist policies in Africa
