France: Départementales 2015 - March 22/29, 2015

[swl]

266 candidates (for 4108 seats) have been elected so far in this 1st round :

[swl]

"We won".

Because everyone in the election night pretended to be happy with the results.

[swl]

One also has to consider that they were the party presenting the highest number of candidates, it obviously helps when add the votes nationwide. For example, in my 'canton' there was no right-wing candidate, only PS, FN and Front de Gauche while any UMP/right-wing candidate would have got at least 10% of the votes.

Official results:
https://twitter.com/Place_Beauvau
http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/departementales-2015/

[swl]

One question to French people or those who knows:

Parties marked as "DIV"/Divers on most of the maps with results are mainly regionalist  (there are some in Alsace, Corsica etc.) parties or also some centre parties and non-partisan candidates? And that "Divers droite" and "Divers gauche/PRG" are just nonsense, can't they show names of that parties? Even on the official webpage with results (some ministry) there was such division. Strange.

There is a bunch of non-partisan candidates among the Divers. Regarding the "divers gauche" and "divers droite", if the candidates register themselves as "right" or "left" instead of "UMP" or "PS"(there are many possible reasons for that), I am not sure it's the role of the election officials to impose them a label.

[swl]

I am not sure if I understood all: candidates register themselves with such labels during candidates official registration? Weird. But thank you for the answer.

A common example is to take the name "the right/the left for name of the local place" (la droite/la gauche pour...).

There was no right-wing candidate in my precinct, but for example in the neigbhouring precinct the right-wing candidates called themselves "Citoyens autrement" (Citizens Differently?) with no reference to the UMP. In local elections it's often better to be seen as distant from the national parties (especially in rural areas).

[swl]

Speaking of FG, I am looking at the official website for results.  It seems some PCF lists ran as PCF and other FG.  Why is this?  I thought PCF members are pretty much running as FG these days.

At the local level many PCF candidates distance themselves from the FG because they want to keep working with the PS (they have been working together for years or even decades in local councils). And in general, the PdG and the PCF diverge on this issue.

[swl]

What could be considered a good or bad result for the different parties tonight? I found this interesting:
 

[swl]

We already know that there will be no FN-led département. Despite what they say, it's disappointing for them. However in a few departments, their score is high enough to prevent any party from reaching majority alone, which may lead to awkward UMP-PS or UMP-FN coalitions.

[swl]

Only the places that voted today.

L'Aisne et le Vaucluse were the targets of the FN, and they are the places were unusual coalitions will have to be worked out.

Note that the image for le Vaucluse is a bit misleading: among the far-right seats 6 went to the FN and 4 to the Ligue du Sud (Southern League, a local far-right party, and they don't necessarily like each other).

[swl]

Yes there were many joint lists. A lot of FdG-EELV or UMP-UDI couples for example.

Usually these couples ran under generic labels "the Left/Right for name of the place", thus the high number of "divers gauche" or "divers droite" in the official results (something we discussed previously).

[swl]

[swl]

Today the new "departemental councils" elected their presidents. In the Vaucluse, the vote ended up as a tie thus the oldest candidate (the UMP candidate) is elected (a common rule in case of tie in France).

Map:




Taken from Le Monde, there are more details if you click on the link: http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/04/02/la-carte-des-presidences-de-conseil-departemental_4608033_4355770.html

[swl]

No, apparently they presented and voted for their own candidate everywhere.

I ignored the functioning of the presidents' election, but absolute majority is only required in two rounds, then relative majority is enough in the third round, so there is no need to form a coalition at this stage. In case of tie in the third round, the oldest candidate is elected.