French Legislative Elections 2012: Hashemite's Guide and Predictions

[Vosem]

This has been very entertaining and informative, and I feel somewhat ignorant asking this, but can someone explain what would cause a certain legislative seat to have a triangulaire runoff instead of a regular top-two runoff? And I'm assuming if you can get 50%+1 then you don't have to go through a second round?

[Californian Tony]

Here we go ! Sorry, it took a bit of time to catch up...



Safe left : 53
Left favored : 5
Lean left : 7
Left : 65

Tossup - left edge : 10
Pure tossup : 5
Tossup - right edge : 10
Tossup : 25

Lean right : 13
Right favored : 11
Safe right : 13
Right : 37

2007 : Left 62 / Right 71.

[Californian Tony]

Let me congratulate you once again for doing this job. You must have spent your whole free time for this. It is really helpful for someone like me who absolutely wants to know what to expect. Kudos !

Since we're over one-fifth and it's starting to shape up, maybe it's time for a few comments. First of all, this looks surprisingly close. So, the area you covered so far is significantly more left-wing than France as a whole (47% of seats held by the left in 2007 as opposed to 40% nationally). However, if we add all safe left, left favored and lean left seats,  we only get 51%. If this is to be considered as representative of France as a whole, it would mean that the total left seats would not reach 50% - meaning that the left's control of majority would rely on seats ranked as tossups. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the outcome of this election is a tossup, which is a frightening perspective enough for me and should give Fab some hope... Conversely, I'm surprised to see how lopsided safe seats are : 53 for the left against 13 for the right ! This seems to suggest that the right benefits from the distribution of seats : the left tends to be packed in safe seats but has few half-competitive seats. This might be proven wrong later, but so far that's what I notice.

I insist that I think you should keep things as geographically (and administratively) regular as possible. My advice would be to finish NPDC, Picardie, Centre and then go on with Ile-de-France. I'm sure there are interesting races out there.

As a side note, some constituencies look quite nasty. Somme is an utter disgrace... Also, numbering is utterly ridiculous. Even the US one makes more sense !

[Vosem]

If this is to be considered as representative of France as a whole, it would mean that the total left seats would not reach 50% - meaning that the left's control of majority would rely on seats ranked as tossups. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the outcome of this election is a tossup,

I'm an ignorant American, of course, so don't mind me...but it seems to me that polling trends clearly showed Sark would have won had the election been held even just a few days later, and that taking into account some sort of small bump from Hollande's victory, the legislative election is tossup with perhaps a vague left tilt.

Conversely, I'm surprised to see how lopsided safe seats are : 53 for the left against 13 for the right ! This seems to suggest that the right benefits from the distribution of seats : the left tends to be packed in safe seats but has few half-competitive seats. This might be proven wrong later, but so far that's what I notice.

How is redistricting done in France?

It seems very possible the left might win the PV but the right wins in the seat count...of course, this all depends on Hashemite being right (and from his other posts I would have to conclude he is very left, hahaha)...

I insist that I think you should keep things as geographically (and administratively) regular as possible. My advice would be to finish NPDC, Picardie, Centre and then go on with Ile-de-France. I'm sure there are interesting races out there.

I wouldn't know about interesting, but geography is a good way to organize this.

As a side note, some constituencies look quite nasty.

This former Illinois resident who now resides in Ohio would like to point out that, no, they don't. Those are clean, un-gerrymandered lines in my neck of the woods.

Also, numbering is utterly ridiculous. Even the US one makes more sense !

No, it doesn't!

This has been very entertaining and informative, and I feel somewhat ignorant asking this, but can someone explain what would cause a certain legislative seat to have a triangulaire runoff instead of a regular top-two runoff? And I'm assuming if you can get 50%+1 then you don't have to go through a second round?

Could somebody answer instead of carrying on talking to themselves?

And, nice map, good analysis of Hashemite's analysis, Antonio. This makes this post an analysis-of-an-analysis-of-an-analysis...generally only religious texts get analyzed that much

[adma]

Yes, 50+1 = first round victory.

And re triangulaires: I believe it's when more than two candidates get a minimum first-round share of registered (as opposed to voting) voters in a particular constituency (10%?), and one of them (more often than not an overachieving FN) refuses to step aside in the second round on behalf of the top/other two finishers...

[Colbert]

As for candidates, they declare what they want when they put their candidacy in the Prefecture.

Neither the Assemblée's site, nor politiquemania has what is interesting for us: is a DVG a PS-dissident or a real DVG ?
You have to know the local situation or to search for yourself

personnaly, i don't count PS/UMP dissidents as part of total voting of PS or UMP, because those votes don't count for the money each party will receive.


(but, yes, for each candidate "sans étiquette", "divers" or other horrible stuff like that, I made a search -generally with his name on google + the name of the department. Often, you found good results)

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

I´d like to say that I am enjoying this thread a lot and by the way I am learning a lot of things about French politics, so thanks to the author. I am a little bit afraid about the Bleu Marine wave but otherwise I am expecting the predictions in the FN strongholds (Provence-Alpes Maritimes, Alsace-Lorraine, etc) and the possible triangulaires there. I will end loving Marineland (Hénin-Beaumont) and I am not too sure about a victory of Mélenchon over his Nemesis.

About the maps: pink-PS and red-front-the-gauche are fine to me, so I like big bad fab´s one (and the others too) but I think that a softer pink would work better in contrast (and DVG would need another colour).
  

Yes, 50+1 = first round victory.

And re triangulaires: I believe it's when more than two candidates get a minimum first-round share of registered (as opposed to voting) voters in a particular constituency (10%?), and one of them (more often than not an overachieving FN) refuses to step aside in the second round on behalf of the top/other two finishers...

If I am not wrong, the percentage of registered voters needed is 12.5% (1/8) to pass to the 2nd round.

[Senator MaxQue]

It's me, or Marisol Touraine is/was president of the CG corresponding to the old Touraine province?

[Vasall des Midas]

50% of valid votes and 25% of registered voters for a first round victory, 12.5% of registered voters or a top two place to advance to the second roung.

[Tender Branson]

New IFOP poll:

49% Right (32.5 UMP + 16.0 FN + 0.5 DLR)

47% Left (34.5 PS + 7.0 FdG + 4.5 Greens + 0.5 LO + 0.5 NPA)

  4% MoDem

http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/1867-1-study_file.pdf

28% of 18-24 year olds vote FN, only 1% behind the PS.

[Californian Tony]

I'm an ignorant American, of course, so don't mind me...but it seems to me that polling trends clearly showed Sark would have won had the election been held even just a few days later, and that taking into account some sort of small bump from Hollande's victory, the legislative election is tossup with perhaps a vague left tilt.

The situation is pretty unusual, I have to admit. Hollande's narrow victory proves that he won more out of anti-Sarkozysm than due to his own qualities. I won't go as far as saying Sarkozy would have won a week later (we will never know for sure) but there is a fair chance. On the other hand, in the history of the fifth Republic, legislatives held immediately after a Prez election have always given a majority to the newly elected President. Turnout is lower, meaning that these elections are perceived as less important (though in fact they are more) and that they are a mere confirmation of the previous vote. The few polls conduced so far would indicate a left victory, explainable by the fact French people are generally not fond of "cohabitation" (PM and PR of opposite political sides) and that they are ready to give Hollande a chance. The climate is not that of a honeymoon like in 2007, 1995 or 1981, but Hollande nonetheless seems to be apreciated so far. However... The situation is still unusual, with a crisis still on the minds of everybody, and it's not to be excluded that people get afraid at Hollande and think letting the right in power would be a lesser evil. It's hard to know what will come from this.

How is redistricting done in France?

It seems very possible the left might win the PV but the right wins in the seat count...of course, this all depends on Hashemite being right (and from his other posts I would have to conclude he is very left, hahaha)...

A redistricting bill in France is a bill like another : the government introduces it, the parliament passes it. Which means there is no possible barrier against partisan gerrymandering... apart from the incompetence of gerrymanderers. In 1986, right-wing minister Charles Pasqua came with a constituency map which was significantly gerymandered in favor of the right. However, with the demographic trends of the next decades (urbanization and gentrification of the left vote), the right's advantages evaporated extremely quickly. The current redistricting was enacted by Alain Marleix, who is, coincidentally, the UMP's electoral specialist. It is widely seen as favorable to the right overall, but the extent to which it is is unclear. I remember hearing somewhere that the left needed 51.5% nationwide to win a majority... This is significant, but doesn't qualify as "massive gerrymander".

Hash is a centrist/centre-right by French standards, but he can't stand Sarkozy (for good reasons). Also, the UMP candidate in his constituency is an absolute party hack and one of the stupidest (if not the stupidest) persons among the right.

This former Illinois resident who now resides in Ohio would like to point out that, no, they don't. Those are clean, un-gerrymandered lines in my neck of the woods.

America is unique with regard to gerrymander. France is obviously miles ahead in this regard, but one can't judge French constituencies by American standards. It would be like saying that an elephant isn't big simply because a galaxy is bigger.

This has been very entertaining and informative, and I feel somewhat ignorant asking this, but can someone explain what would cause a certain legislative seat to have a triangulaire runoff instead of a regular top-two runoff? And I'm assuming if you can get 50%+1 then you don't have to go through a second round?

Yes. There is a second round if no candidate reaches absolute majority by first round. In this case, the candidates who have received the votes of at least 12.5% of registered voters are qualified (if less than two candidates meet this criterion, the two top vote getters get qualified nonetheless). Thus a triangulaire can happen if three candidates reach a 12.5% threshold. In this case, a mere plurality can be sufficient to win.

[Sibboleth]

Sarkozy wouldn't have won had the election been a week later because the campaign would also have started a week later. And the polls show a big defeat for the UMP in the works, so, you know.

[Californian Tony]

Sarkozy wouldn't have won had the election been a week later because the campaign would also have started a week later. And the polls show a big defeat for the UMP in the works, so, you know.

What if there were 3 weeks separating the two rounds instead of 2 ?

[Sibboleth]

Sarkozy wouldn't have won had the election been a week later because the campaign would also have started a week later. And the polls show a big defeat for the UMP in the works, so, you know.

What if there were 3 weeks separating the two rounds instead of 2 ?

Same result, given that all that happened was panic caused by the other lot about to get in.

[Californian Tony]

Sarkozy wouldn't have won had the election been a week later because the campaign would also have started a week later. And the polls show a big defeat for the UMP in the works, so, you know.

What if there were 3 weeks separating the two rounds instead of 2 ?

Same result, given that all that happened was panic caused by the other lot about to get in.

This is one of the possible interpretations (and the one I personally want to believe in) but not the only one.

[Hashemite]

Let's not derail this thread, kthx.

As for the next departments I'll cover, given that it's impossible for me to cover 450 remaining constituencies in the time space of two weeks - it would require me to cover 35 or something per day - I'll insist that I cover interesting departments in priority and then fill in the gaps with the time I have left.

[Sibboleth]

Do whatever you want in whatever order you want.

[Vosem]

It's your thread, Hash.

[Jens]

Do whatever you want in whatever order you want.

I'm with Al
Besides that would I love to have a list over the deals between Les Verts and PS - and where FG stand a chance. And if you bother, the same with NC and UMP

And of cause all the DVG and DVD - always fun to see who is real diverse and who is just dissidents from the major parties

[Californian Tony]

Let's not derail this thread, kthx.

As for the next departments I'll cover, given that it's impossible for me to cover 450 remaining constituencies in the time space of two weeks - it would require me to cover 35 or something per day - I'll insist that I cover interesting departments in priority and then fill in the gaps with the time I have left.

That sucks. Seriously, I like your lengthy descriptions of each race a lot, but I'd rather have you write only 2 lines per seat rather than renouncing to cover all 577 races.

[rob in cal]

What do you guys think the minimum amount of the nationwide vote the left wing parties need for an overall left wing majority of seats.  In the polls right now the 46 or 47% they are getting should be enough, but I wonder what the danger level is that would mean no majority.

[Sibboleth]

What do you guys think the minimum amount of the nationwide vote the left wing parties need for an overall left wing majority of seats.  In the polls right now the 46 or 47% they are getting should be enough, but I wonder what the danger level is that would mean no majority.

If there are enough three way fights then they won't even need a majority of second round votes.

[Hashemite]

Let's not derail this thread, kthx.

As for the next departments I'll cover, given that it's impossible for me to cover 450 remaining constituencies in the time space of two weeks - it would require me to cover 35 or something per day - I'll insist that I cover interesting departments in priority and then fill in the gaps with the time I have left.

That sucks. Seriously, I like your lengthy descriptions of each race a lot, but I'd rather have you write only 2 lines per seat rather than renouncing to cover all 577 races.

Dude, I work 38 hours a week; I sleep, I eat and I waste time like any normal human being, and I'm already sacrificing all my free time and more to write these. Unless I can be cloned or somebody joins me in doing this, then as a normal human being, it's unreasonable to expect me to cover 450 constituencies in a serious fashion in like 13 days.

[Californian Tony]

Let's not derail this thread, kthx.

As for the next departments I'll cover, given that it's impossible for me to cover 450 remaining constituencies in the time space of two weeks - it would require me to cover 35 or something per day - I'll insist that I cover interesting departments in priority and then fill in the gaps with the time I have left.

That sucks. Seriously, I like your lengthy descriptions of each race a lot, but I'd rather have you write only 2 lines per seat rather than renouncing to cover all 577 races.

Dude, I work 38 hours a week; I sleep, I eat and I waste time like any normal human being, and I'm already sacrificing all my free time and more to write these. Unless I can be cloned or somebody joins me in doing this, then as a normal human being, it's unreasonable to expect me to cover 450 constituencies in a serious fashion in like 13 days.

Yeah, I know... I'd be unable to do 1/100 of your work. But, just an advice : you might make descriptions far shorter. Maybe it wouldn't be enough to do all 577, but the more you do the better.

[Vasall des Midas]

Sorry, I don't have the playmoney to clone you. If I did, I would.

I would like to see Nord and PACA, but also like the idea of going clockwise around France. You could always write two lines about the safe places and keep the current format for the interesting seats.