Opinion of French Presidential campaign rules

[Antonio the Sixth]

French presidential campaigns are much more regulated than American ones. Here are the main rules :

- Regarding candidacies : In order to declare candidacy, an individual has to collect the signatures of 500 elected officials (usually mayors). Signatures are to be submitted to the Constitutional Council for verification roughly five weeks before polling day.

- Regarding campaign finance : Expenditures are capped to around 16 million Euro, of which 20% are financed by the State (50% if you receive more than 5% of votes). Individual contributions are capped to 4600 Euro.

- Regarding campaign advertisement : Two weeks before polling day, all official candidates are entitled to the exact same airtime in all radios and TV networks. Campaign ads are extremely regulated. Prior to the two last weeks of campaign, none is authorized. After that, every day at the same hour, every radio or TV network is required to broadcast, successively (and in a random order) the official campaign spot of every candidate. No other spot can be broadcast anywhere. Negative spots are absolutely forbidden (actually, this is not limited to politics : negative publicity is illegal in general).

- Regarding campaign end : Polling day is always on Sunday. Starting on Saturday at 0:00, the official campaign stops. Any campaigning activity is illegal. Candidates and their supporters cannot express themselves in the media or hold meetings, and media cannot talk about them in any way. In short, they can't say anything other than "polling day is tomorrow" or "polling day is today".

- Regarding results : The latest polls close at 20:00. This is the moment when we are supposed to learn about the results. However, the first credible estimates usually come as early as 18:30. It is illegal to publish them until all polls are closed, whether you're a pollster, a media or a private citizen. Of course, it is quite easy to circumvent this in the era of internets and globalization.

So, what do you think about these rules. Necessary ? Archaic ? Protecting democracy ? Stifling free speech ?

[minionofmidas]

- Regarding candidacies : In order to declare candidacy, an individual has to collect the signatures of 500 elected officials (usually mayors). Signatures are to be submitted to the Constitutional Council for verification roughly five weeks before polling day.

Disapprove. Obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Way too high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Similar (not identical) to here... they could just do away with the tv spots entirely and no one would mind. Indeed, they should do that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disapprove.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

where it belongs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ridic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmmm. Other countries seem capable of preventing stuff to get out. Journos and politicians here tend to have a rough idea of what the exit poll will say at 6 round about a quarter past five, and virtually never has anything leaked.

[Hatman 🍁]

Heh. I've been known to conduct campaign activities after midnight on Election Day, and I think that's illegal here too.

[Franzl]

Disapprove of the restriction on campaigning at a certain time and disapprove of the "equal media time". The ban on negativity is truly freedom-hating.

Support regulations on who can donate what and support even stricter limits on what can be spent.

So overall...more bad than good, I guess.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I for one do quite like the equal airtime provision. Of course there are more serious candidates than others, but I think it's a major democratic guarantee that all candidates are given the same time to express themselves. I'd rather make the requirement for declaring candidacies much harsher (having to collect the signatures of 1% of the electorate would be my proposal) than renouncing to that rule.

[greenforest32]

1. (Candidacy) - I'm not familiar with the requirements for officially becoming a candidate but why require signatures of (local) elected officials instead of regular people? Seems less direct.

2. (Campaign finance) - I think ideally elections could be decided with minimal money and just simple (but comprehensive) discussion and voting based on issues but it seems like money is conflated with legitimacy so I do support strict contribution limits and public financing of elections. These limits are too high I think.

3. (Advertisement) - Free advertising in elections doesn't seem bad. Not sure I see the point in preventing a negative ad (negativity can be constructive criticism) or preventing ads at certain locations or times.

4. (Campaign end) - Approve of Sunday elections, disapprove of banning campaigning on the final day/days.

5. (Results) - Though I'm not opposed to releasing the results early on election day as credible estimates are possible, this 90 minute lag doesn't seem too bad.

[greenforest32]

- Regarding results : The latest polls close at 20:00. This is the moment when we are supposed to learn about the results. However, the first credible estimates usually come as early as 18:30. It is illegal to publish them until all polls are closed, whether you're a pollster, a media or a private citizen. Of course, it is quite easy to circumvent this in the era of internets and globalization.

Does this ban exit polling results too or is it just for releasing official government results?

[Antonio the Sixth]

- Regarding results : The latest polls close at 20:00. This is the moment when we are supposed to learn about the results. However, the first credible estimates usually come as early as 18:30. It is illegal to publish them until all polls are closed, whether you're a pollster, a media or a private citizen. Of course, it is quite easy to circumvent this in the era of internets and globalization.

Does this ban exit polling results too or is it just for releasing official government results?

It bans exit polling as well (though, technically, exit poll results could be revealed after 20:00, but of course there would be no purpose).

[Hash]

1. (Candidacy): While way too many idiots end up running, restricting candidacies is not very democratic. People who want to run for President should either get endorsements from 1% of registered voters or pay a fairly large deposit (and get their deposit back if they break 5% or something).

2. (Campaign finance): I have no issue, and it's way better than how it was in the 70s or 80s.

3. (Advertisement): The rules are obviously anal, but French rules are always anal. The official campaign ads are often horrible and airing them on TV is just so 1970s, but equal airtime is not a bad idea though I could do without Cheminade sprouting off his insanities about aliens.

4. (Campaign end): Sunday elections are the way to go, but the electoral silence period is pretty stupid these days with the interwebs and stuff. But isn't there any GOTV efforts allowed?

5. (Results): It seems fairly decent, if only because suspense at 19:59 is thrilling. I hate the idiots who want to spoil my thrill, and I will try my best tomorrow to shield myself off from anybody who is going to be leaking the exit polls.


What is, however, insanely archaic is having a ballot paper for each candidate instead of just one ballot like in every other civilized country. It's a total waste of paper to begin with, considering 90% of the ballots will end up in the trash.

[minionofmidas]

What is, however, insanely archaic is having a ballot paper for each candidate instead of just one ballot like in every other civilized country. It's a total waste of paper to begin with, considering 90% of the ballots will end up in the trash.

As in, there's piles of papers, you pick one and put that in the ballot box? Do you need to fill out anything on it as well?
Strange as it sounds to me, IIRC it exists in some other countries as well. I know I've read such descriptions from elsewhere before.

[Franzl]

Doesn't Sweden do that as well?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Good overall.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1. (Candidacy): While way too many idiots end up running, restricting candidacies is not very democratic. People who want to run for President should either get endorsements from 1% of registered voters or pay a fairly large deposit (and get their deposit back if they break 5% or something).

I actually think 1% of registered voters would be a far harsher requirement than the current system. It's pretty easy to find 500 trolls/tools/idiots among majors, far less to actually convince 450,000 people that your candidacy is somehow useful to them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think any official campaigning activity ends, including grassroots party militancy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally agree. Suspence is fun. Of course, when the possibility exists, temptation is strong. Fortunately, reagarding First round, I'll be on the road to Sciences Po (in order to attend the election night there) so no risk of spoiler.

[You kip if you want to...]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay with this, I guess it's a good thing in a presidential system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically the same as the UK only we can be negative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite a rubbish rule.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same as UK, only the most we get before 10 is "Oh, we're hearing good words from such-and-such a marginal". Quite a good rule, although it doesn't help that we dont have the best track record of exit polls (outside of 2001, 05, 10). Even in 1997, the exits over-egged Labour.

[Redalgo]

1. (Candidacy) - I actually dislike signature requirements in general and would be interested in finding an alternative.

2. (Finance) - In my opinion the campaigns should be fully state-funded. My views on private funding are more mixed.

3. (Advertisement) - Though I like the general thrust of these ideas some deregulation may do more good than harm.

4. (Election Day) - I like the placement on Sunday but otherwise feel that there are too many unnecessary rules here.

5. (Results) - This is the area of policy I feel is most outdated but I guess it doesn't really hurt anybody as it stands.

My impression of these campaign regulations is stuck somewhere in-between good and bad, overall, but I will err toward the former.

[k-onmmunist]

Overall I think they're good ground rules, and they ensure the campaign will be competitive

[they don't love you like i love you]

Candidacy: That's just stupid.
Campaign Finance: The individual contribution rate should be lower (that's actually far higher than the US limit), but pretty decent overall. I'm assuming things like 527s just can't exist? I don't really approve of that though Super-PACs are a bridge way too far thanks to the idiocy of the Citizens United ruling.
Campaign Advertisement: The airtime restrictions aren't perfect but the details could be improved on it and it'd be good, the ban on negative ads is dumb.
Campaign End: Approve of Sunday time, disapprove of everything else. Countries with these type of laws need to realize how pointless they are in the modern era.
Results: Same as above.

[You kip if you want to...]

So the Twittosphere was reduced to calling Hollande "Flan" and Sarko "the midget" today because of the 24 hour rule? Stupid rule.