Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts

Thursday, February 9, 2017

France Presidency 2017

France is scheduled to hold the first round of elections to the Presidency on the 23rd of April; if no candidate receives a majority of votes in this round, a second round will be held, between the top two candidates in the first round, on the 7th of May. Elections to the National Assembly, the popularly elected and most powerful house of the bicameral legislature, are also scheduled to take place in June, roughly one month after the likely second round of the presidential election.

I've written before about France's electoral system, but it is worth summarising the nation's constitutional arrangements at present. France has a semi-presidential system of government, with both a directly-elected President for a five-year term and a Prime Minister responsible to the lower house of the bicameral legislature (the National Assembly). The system is of the premier-presidential sub-type, meaning that the Prime Minister cannot be removed by the President, though they may appoint a Prime Minister.

This election follows five years of the presidency of Francois Hollande, a Socialist. Mr Hollande was elected to the presidency, defeating the leader of the centre-right UMP (Union for a Popular Movement) after seventeen years of centre-right control of the office. Mr Hollande, however, has struggled with a stagnant economy and high unemployment, and did not choose to seek re-election. He leaves office with low approval ratings, and with a Socialist Party that lost substantial support in local and European elections during his tenure.

Candidates

Benoit Hamon-Socialist Party
The governing Socialist Party held an open primary to determine their presidential candidate. Voters were required to be registered to vote in normal French elections, to donate one euro to the organisation conducting the primary (while only Socialist candidates were likely to win, candidates from minor parties closely affiliated to the Socialists also competed, hence the primary was branded as the "Citizens' Primary"), and to generally accept the values of the left. 1.6 million votes were cast in the first round, a figure which increased to 2 million in the second.

The leading candidates for this primary were Manuel Valls, a former Prime Minister, and Arnaud Montebourg and Benoit Hamon, both former cabinet ministers. Valls, considered a more right-wing candidate than the other two, led in early polls, but the first round of the primary resulted in an unexpected first place for Mr. Hamon, who won 36% to 31% for Mr. Valls and 17% for Mr. Montebourg. No other candidate won more than 7%. Montebourg endorsed Hamon for the second round, who won 58% to 42% for Valls.

Hamon is considered to be on the left of the Socialists, supporting a policy of providing a basic income to all citizens and the legalisation of cannabis.

Francois Fillon-The Republicans
Like the Socialists, the Republicans (a re-brand of the UMP) held an open primary to determine their nominee, in which the general public could vote. The unpopularity of the incumbent Socialist government made it likely that the Republican nominee would have a good chance of victory; hence, there was more interest in the Republican primary. 4.3 million voters turned out in the second round, 4.4 in the second.

Also similar to the Socialists, there were three main candidates in this primary. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Ministers Alain Juppe and Francois Fillon. Mr Juppe was the front-runner, with most expecting the runoff to between him and Mr Sarkozy. However, after a strong debate performance, Fillon surged to 44% in the first round, with Juppe on 29%, Sarkozy on 21% and no other candidate above 3%. With Sarkozy endorsing Fillon, he won an easy victory in the second round with 66% of the vote.

The victory gave Fillon frontrunner status; given the divided nature of the left, it was considered likely that he would face National Front candidate Marine Le Pen in the second round. Ms Le Pen's radical views mean that Fillon would likely win such a runoff comfortably with leftist votes. However, in recent days, he has been beset by a scandal involving his wife being paid for an apparently 'fake job', and his polling has dropped accordingly. It remains to be seen whether he will remain in the race.

Emmanuel Macron-Independent/En Marche!

Emmanuel Macron served as economy minister for two years as a Socialist, but resigned from the position last year, after conflicts with party positions on various matters within his portfolio. He then launched a new political party, En Marche!, and ran for the presidency. He has also signalled his intention to run a slate of candidates for the National Assembly election. 

Initial polls had Macron in third place, behind Le Pen and Fillon. However, following the Fillon scandal, recent polls have shown him catching up to Fillon, and advancing to the second round, where he receives the support of the centre-right and beats Le Pen comfortably. He stands on a platform of economic liberalisation and general social liberalism, to the right of Hamon and perhaps Le Pen economically, but to the left of Fillon and Le Pen on issues like immigration. 

Marine Le Pen-National Front

The National Front are a long-term minor presence on the French political scene. The usage of the two-round system, where the centre-left and right generally team up against National Front candidates in the second round, has generally led to little representation for the party in the National Assembly. The party's most substantial result in the past was Le Pen's father, Jean Le Pen, reaching the second round in the 2002 presidential election, narrowly beating Socialist Lionel Jospin in a fragmented race. Mr Le Pen's opponent in this round, UMP incumbent Jacques Chirac, received the endorsement of Mr Jospin, and much of the left, propelling him to a landslide victory (82-18).

Mainstream opposition to the party comes from distaste of its opposition to immigration and Islam, however, with an increase in concern about terrorism and immigration after the Syrian refugee crisis, the party's stocks have risen. They won the highest number of votes at the 2014 European election, and have performed strongly at lower-level elections throughout Mr Hollande's term. It appears likely that Ms Le Pen will win the highest number of votes in the first round of the election, with roughly 24%; however, most polls have her losing a runoff by twenty points or more to Mr Macron or Fillon.

Other candidates in the race include leftist Jean-Luc Melanchon, running with the support of the Left Front (successor to the Communist Party), though his candidacy is under the name 'Unsubmissive France', Green candidate Yannick Jadot, Nicholas Dupont Aignan (who is attempting to fill the niche between Fillon and Le Pen), and various other irrelevancies. Melanchon is the strongest of this group, polling at around 10%. None of the others is higer than 3%. Centrist Francois Bayrou has not yet stated whether he will stand for the election; polls that include him show him at 5%.

Problems with the two-round system

The two-round system is one of those most commonly used for presidential elections around the world. Much of this is due to many presidential systems (such as those in Senegal and the Central African Republic) being in place due to French influence during colonial times, but the system is used in countries like the Ukraine and Poland because it ensures a candidate will be elected with majority support. 

Nonetheless, the system has a substantial disadvantage in fragmented elections, which we may see demonstrated in this upcoming vote. In a fragmented election, the possibility exists that two candidates can make it to the second round with little initial support. If an ideological group splits itself between too many candidates, the possibility exists that no candidate representing a substantial ideological group is able to enter the second round.

An example of this is shown in the 2002 presidential election. Red candidates represent leftists, blue conservatives, black far-right candidates and cyan centrists. As you can see, Chirac and Le Pen finished first and second, and all voters had to choose between them in the second round. However, 45% of voters, all up, voted for a leftist candidate, compared to 29% for the left and 19% for the far-right. Yet there was no candidate for the leftists in the second round, because of the increased fragmentation of this group.

The problem arises because the two-round system does not necessarily provide great incentives for voters to coalesce around two candidates. Left-inclined voters in 2002 may have felt comfortable knowing that they could cast a ballot for a minor leftist, to signify their support for that particular candidate, thinking that Jospin would certainly enter the second round. A first-past-the-post system would mean voters would coalesce between two candidates, at least in theory; often, this squashes diversity in the party system, or leads to candidates being elected with little support.

While Fillon's woes have made this possibility likely, it could potentially have been the case that the left, with the backing of roughly 40% of the electorate, would have had no representation in the runoff. This particular issue is partially circumvented for National Assembly elections, where candidates can enter the second round if they receive the support of 12.5% of the registered electorate (on average, this represented 21.8% of the vote cast at the last election). However, the Constitution of France specifically entrenches the top-two requirement for presidential elections.

Even so, one of the key advantages of preferential voting for single-member seats (as the Presidency of France is) is demonstrated by this particular alternative; the usage of several rounds of exclusions and transfers results in the candidates in later stages of the count having wider support than their equivalents under the two-round system.

The National Assembly

The President has the right, after 'consultation' with the Prime Minister and Speaker, to dissolve the National Assembly at any time of his choosing. However, the Assembly's maximum term is five years, meaning that an election must be held by the tenth of June this year. 

No doubt, such an election date would serve the victor of the election well. The popularity bump incumbent presidents receive has meant that the last three legislative elections, all held shortly after those for the Presidency, have resulted in majorities for the newly elected President's party, a useful tool given that failure to control the Assembly means the President loses control over the cabinet and becomes less able to pass their agenda.

This will become an especially important point in the case of a victory by Mr. Macron. His 'En Marche!' party, as a cursory examination of its website will show, spends much of its time discussing Macron's statements alone. He has said he will run candidates for all 477 seats, but the  gives the appearance of being a mainly personalistic vehicle, focusing on providing a brand to its lead candidate, far more than any other French party. The Socialist and Republican sites show statements from a variety of other figures, and both parties, despite their weaknesses at this election, do have large legislative caucuses and incumbent members with personal vote factors.

Normal behaviour has been for the centre-left and centre-right to form opposing alliances where they allocate seats to parties within said alliances, with the National Front generally not being able to make the second round in most seats due to this tactic (unlike the presidential elections); in 2012, they only entered the second round in sixty-five seats, and won two. If Macron wins, it may well be the case that he forms an agreement with the existing leftist alliance (Socialists+Greens) that would allow the Socialists to have some influence over the new government, while giving some experience and aforementioned personal vote factors to the President.

It is still largely unpredictable what will happen at these elections. Perhaps reflecting the irrelevance of such polling until the winner of the Presidency is determined, the most recent poll with seat numbers was taken in June 2016. It had the centre-right winning a majority, and the National Front winning around fifty seats (in normal two-round elections, they have never left single digits; this would be their best result for any National Assembly election). Such a result, which seems consistent with general increases in support for the FN at the local and European level (implying it's not just Ms Le Pen's personal support) would provide a clear reminder of that party's growing influence, even if Le Pen loses.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Electoral systems of the world-France (Part 3 of 3)

Previous posts in this series


The end of the Fourth Republic had brought with it an anti-parliamentary spirit to France. However, some were doubtful that the new government could survive, especially considering that France still faced many problems.

De Gaulle had taken the office of President, but he had not been elected directly. Instead, he was voted in by an Electoral College, an assembly of 80,000 Members of the French Parliament and local elected officials. This college had given him 79% of the vote to 13% for the Communist candidate and 8% for the candidate of the leftist Democratic Forces.

However, De Gaulle felt that him being responsible to an Electoral College would not provide the Presidency with the legitimacy that it would need in order to control the Government. He decided that direct elections to the Presidency would be the only means by which he could get this legitimacy. Direct presidential elections had not been done in France for 110 years at that time.

The electoral system for the Presidency would be broadly similar to that used for the National Assembly. In order to become a candidate, a person needed to have 500 signatures from local politicians. In the first round, voters would vote for one candidate. If one candidate won a majority of the votes in this round, they would be elected.

If no candidate won a majority, a second election would be held 14 days later. Unlike the electoral system for the National Assembly, only the top two candidates would be permitted to contest the second round. This appears to stem from a desire to ensure that the President received majority support from the public.

The President would serve a term of seven years, and could only serve two terms in a row. A seven-year term is fairly long by international standards, but clearly De Gaulle wanted the President to be in office for a long term; perhaps he viewed this as important for long-term planning.

The above proposal was endorsed in October 1962 in a referendum. This referendum was controversial, as the National Assembly had not endorsed it. However, despite this, 62.2% voted Yes, thus meaning that De Gaulle had a strong mandate for the changes.

Following this, a legislative election took place in November. The National Centre of Independents and Peasants, a centre-right party, had split, with a group leaving to join Charles de Gaulle's Union of the New Republic to provide De Gaulle with a presidential majority.



The result was a convincing win for the Gaullists, who came very close indeed to a majority. In their agreement with the Independent Republicans, they controlled about 54% of the seats. Another impact of the electoral system was that the Communists were still under-represented, as they struggled to form alliances in the second round. De Gaulle could not count on support from the other centre-right parties, due to their opposition to presidential government.

Three years later, De Gaulle went to his first presidential election. He was still fairly popular, and it was generally expected that he would comfortably win re-election. He was still a polarising figure, however, and the two-round system would be expected to work against him if he faced a moderate opposition candidate.

Francois Mitterand was chosen as the candidate of the united left, excluding the Communists, who nonetheless endorsed him. He put up a fairly strong performance, and deprived De Gaulle of a victory in the first round.

This result was confirmation of the idea that presidential elections encouraged alliance-building. The left, fearing the possibility of not making the second round, ran a united candidate, which reduced fragmentation.

Another legislative election took place two years later, in 1967. Mitterand had installed himself as Socialist leader, and the Independent Republican party had merged into the Gaullist party, while the two centre-right to centre parties merged into the Democratic Centre.

The Gaullists came very close to a majority, although presumably the centrists were willing to offer support to the government, or at least abstain to prevent the left-wing from controlling the Assembly. 

The next year in France saw significant social conflict. The left had made small gains at this election, especially the Communists. This result meant that the Socialists felt the need to form an alliance with the Communists, thus creating a left-wing alternative to the De Gaulle government.

In May, small student protests began against De Gaulle's government. These ballooned into a strike (not unusual in France), which was unusually large and independent of the traditional trade unions. Despite a fairly generous wage deal, the protests continued, and became so large and so destructive to the French economy that the nation began to collapse.

Late in May, De Gaulle was so concerned about the progress of the protests that he decided to leave for Germany. Once there, he gave a speech calling an election, and for workers to return to work. Hopeful of a victory, the Communists agreed to an election.

The movement subsided over the next few months, and by June, France's economy had returned to normal. The legislative election was marred by the left-wing parties (the Socialists and Communists) agreeing to an effective coalition deal, which was not especially popular with a public concerned about a Communist-dominated government.

The result was a landslide win for the Gaullists, mostly at the expense of the left. The Communists lost more than half their seats, while the Socialists won their lowest share of the seats since 1958. The centre also lost a significant number of seats.

But, more importantly, this election showed that the two-round system can be very, very disproportional. The Communists and Socialists only lost 2% of their vote from 1967, but the disproportional nature of the system meant that both parties were massively unrepresented.

By this point, however, De Gaulle was aging, and pressure was mounting on him to step aside for a younger candidate. However, in 1969, he pressed ahead with a proposal for reforming local government and the Senate.

The proposed reforms had dramatic consequences for the Senate. Half of its members would be elected by local government, and half would be appointed by representative bodies for social groups, in a similar manner to the Irish Seanad. This new body, however, would have a purely consultative function.

Power to declare war would be moved to the National Assembly only. Laws would only be allowed to be proposed by the National Assembly, and proposals only had to be forwarded to the Senate 'for advice' after passage of the National Assembly. Finance bills, too, would only require vague 'consultation'. Constitutional amendments only had to be 'subject to the opinion of the Senate', and only National Assembly approval and passage at a referendum would be required. In the event of the death of the President, the Prime Minister would become President (the original Constitution would have made the President of the Senate President)

Passage of these reforms would turn France into a nation that was bicameral, but in name only. This was perceived by local authorities as a power grab, and was fiercely opposed by them. The centrists, who had their power base in the local authorities, declared their opposition too.

The left-wing opposition parties, too, had their concerns; they felt that a Gaullist-dominated lower house could ram through legislation that they opposed, and seeing as government was so far away from them, they did not feel that this disadvantage would be outweighed by the advantage of complete power if they won.

Combined with this was a proposal for decentralisation. It would create regional government, which would have control over housing, as well as all the other issues that French local government controlled. These would be governed by regional councils, which would be indirectly elected.

De Gaulle had staked his reputation on the referendum, and had threatened to resign if it did not pass. This was a dangerous gamble, although as De Gaulle was elderly at the time, it was not especially unlikely (in fact, De Gaulle would not live out his presidential term).

When the votes were counted, 52.4% of the electorate had voted No. This was a fairly narrow defeat, but De Gaulle kept his promise, and resigned on 28 April 1969. In an interim capacity, he was replaced by Senate President Alan Pohler. But, unlike the United States, Pohler would not replace him for the entire term; he would only serve until new presidential elections could be held.

Pohler ran for President as a centrist candidate. He was opposed by former Prime Minister Georges Pompidou as the candidate of the Gaullist Union for the New Republic. The Communists ran Jacques Duclos, and Gaston Defferre ran as the Socialist candidate.


The first round result was a comfortable lead for Pompidou, while Pohler managed a narrow second. The second round was a more comfortable win for Pompidou, but it demonstrated a problem with the system. Left-wing voters, who comprised the largest opposition to Pompidou, were not given much of a choice.

Some of the more moderate leftist voters preferred Pohler, as the 'lesser of two evils'. Others just didn't turn out, or cast informal votes; turnout in the second round went from 77% to 68%, and the informal vote went up from 1% to 6%. This feature of the two-round system in presidential elections was to have serious ramifications later.

Legislative elections took place in 1973. In the period leading up to it, the Socialist Party, once again led by Mitterand, signed an agreement with the Communists outlining what a Communist-Socialist government would do. It called for mass nationalisations, the introduction of proportional representation, the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and unilateral nuclear disarmament.

This was a double-edged sword; on one hand, the Gaullists could raise fears about the Communists now that it was official that any left-wing government would include them, but the agreement could potentially lay out exactly what the left proposed, thus showing some transparency. The advantage for Mitterand was that he would be able to moderate and tame the Communists, and hopefully reduce their relevance and cement the Socialists as the major leftist force.

The agreement split the left, however. Certain members of the Radicals opposed it, and formed an alliance with the centrists, while the left of the radicals stayed with the left, becoming the Union of the Radical Left and signing the Common Programme. This division persists to this day.

The centre-right won a fairly comfortable victory, although it was a loss from the heights of 1969. The left made fairly substantial gains, and both parties benefited from the alliance. The centrists had minor losses.

The election showed the weak relationship between votes and seats in the two-round system. The Gaullists only lost 1% of the second round vote from 1969, but thanks presumably to greater coordination between the Socialist and Communist parties, lost about 17% of their seats. Of course, their vote share was still lower than their seats share, thus making them beneficiaries of the system, but it was a weaker benefit.

At this point, President Georges Pompidou had fallen ill. He had been suffering from cancer, and on the second of April, 1974, he died. He was replaced, once again, by Senate President Alan Pohler, for the interim period up until the election.

The next presidential election saw the widest field of candidates yet. The Independent Republicans, a centre-right pro-Gaullist party, ran Valery Giscard d'Estaing, while another Gaullist, Jacques Chaban-Delmas, ran as the Union of Democrats for the Republic. Giscard was more moderate than Chaban-Delmas. The UDR was much larger than the Independent Republicans, but, as you will see, this did not necessarily guarantee their candidate a lead within the centre-right.

The 1974 presidential election was the first one for the left running under the Common Programme, and this presented a dilemma. The Communist Party were (narrowly) the largest party on the left, but they were ideologically extremist, and a Communist candidate for the presidency would give the centre-right a useful angle of attack on the left. In the end, it was decided to nominate the more moderate Francois Mitterand, who you may remember as the candidate of the Socialists who had pushed De Gaulle into a second round in 1969. This was evidence that the two-round presidential system was removing extremism and encouraging moderates.

French presidential election candidate ballot symbols for the overseas district
Other than these three, the rest of the presidential field was fairly minor. Jean Royer, a Minister and Mayor, ran as an independent for social conservatism (with a minimalist campaign), while Arlette Laguiller ran as the Trotskyist candidate (she was the first woman ever to run for a presidential election in France). Rene Dumont ran as an environmentalist candidate, and Jean Marine Le Pen (whose name you will hear again) ran as the far-right candidate.

In the early days of the first round campaign, Mitterand was winning 35-40% of the vote, while Giscard and Chaban-Delmas were on about 25% each. However, as the campaign wore on, Giscard began to pull out a lead, while Chaban-Delmas fell back in to the high teens.
In the end, it was not even close. Giscard won an easy lead over Chaban-Delmas. This showed that presidential elections were becoming more personalised; while Chaban-Delmas's party was much larger than Giscard's, this did not help him.

The second round campaign was very, very tight. Polls generally gave Giscard a very narrow lead, or showed him tied with Mitterand, but the leads were narrow. 

The result was a very narrow win for Giscard, based off strong flows from Chaban-Delmas. This showed a clear advantage of the two-round system; the candidate with the broadest support could win, rather than just the largest minority.

Giscard's government style was fairly liberal and centrist. This provoked controversy amongst certain sectors of the UDR, which the Socialist-Communist alliance exploited. In 1977, a local election resulted in a significant number of left-wing gains, a fair few of which were made at the expense of UDR-centrist splits. At this point, the centrist movement had renamed themselves the Union for French Democracy (UDF), and Giscard had joined the party. The Gaullist right reacted by reforming themselves into a new party, called the Rally for the Republic.

Legislative elections were scheduled for 1978, and it was felt that the Socialist-Communist alliance would win, based off their success in the local elections. However, the Common Programme was not renewed in the lead up to the election, thus meaning that the cooperation that had given the group such a strong result in 1973 would not be quite as evident. The reason that the agreement was not renewed was that the Communists were concerned that the Common Programme was sapping their electoral support; not an unreasonable concern.


The result was the first since the end of the Third Republic where the Socialists were larger than the Communists, thus showing that the Socialist strategy was working. The RPR won the most seats and votes on the right, thus exacerbating the conflict between RPR leader Jacques Chirac and Giscard.

Giscard was the first president to serve out his entire term and run for re-election in 1981. He was opposed by Francois Mitterand, who ran as the Socialist candidate, Jacques Chirac, who ran as the RPR candidate, and Georges Marchais, who ran as the Communist candidate.

Giscard won a narrow first, but came comfortably ahead of Chirac. The same went for Mitterand, who finished comfortably ahead of his leftist rival.

Relations between the candidates in the runoff and the candidates who had dropped out would be vitally important to determining the winner. Marchais, Crepau and Laguiller all wholeheartedly endorsed Mitterand, but Chirac, whose relationship with Giscard was rocky at best, only offered his personal support, and did not endorse Giscard. There were even allegations from certain political figures that Chirac had made a pact with Mitterand.

Whatever happened between the parties, Mitterand won narrowly. He became the first Socialist president since 1954, and the first one to be directly elected.

His presidency, however, did not start auspiciously. The next year, local elections took place, which resulted in a loss of 35 seats in the cantons for the Socialists, and 47 seats for the Communists. More local elections in the next year, in which the right won 61% of councillors.

In the 1984 European Parliament elections. The joint RPR-UDF list won 43% of the vote, while the Socialists only managed 20%, and the Communists crashed to 11.2%. This election was also notable for the strong performance of the National Front, who won 10.9% and the same number of seats as the Communists.

Seeing that he would likely lose the next legislative elections, scheduled for 1986, Mitterand decided to introduce proportional representation, a belated manifesto promise. While he ostensibly did it in order to make French elections fairer, the timing made many political figures suspicious that he was doing it in order to avoid a landslide loss in the legislative elections.

The proposed proportional representation system was not especially proportional. It was party-list proportional representation. It used 2-24 member districts, with an average magnitude of 5.5 seats. Voters voted for parties only; lists were closed. Seats were distributed by the D'Hondt method, with a 5% threshold in districts to win seats, which would not be relevant in most districts. This was a fairly disproportional system that would not quite be fair to the smaller parties, but this would not matter too much to Mitterand; his interest was only in ensuring that his Socialists would be under-represented.

The electoral system was criticised by the right, who not only viewed it as a cynical attempt to reduce potential losses in the upcoming election, but as an attempt to split the right by allowing the National Front to win seats.

The result was a narrow win for the centre-right, who won 51.2% of the seats. While this was far from a comfortable majority, the presence of the National Front meant that the left were also far from a majority. This meant that, in order to avoid political gridlock, Mitterand would have to deal with the right, an effective coalition deal known as cohabitation. This was the first time under the Fifth Republic that the legislature and presidency were controlled by different parties.

The election also saw the further decline of the Communist Party, who won their lowest vote share since 1932. The National Front won a very strong result, and to this day the result is the best. However, the district-based PR system meant that they were under-represented, as were the Communists and other small parties.

President Mitterand appointed RPR leader Jacques Chirac as Prime Minister. The deal was tense, and Chirac was forced to use the National Assembly's power to pass laws without presidential approval a number of times. However, importantly, the proportional representation system was repealed, and was replaced by the two-round system, virtually unchanged from the pre-PR system. The only change was that the threshold for entry into the second round was raised to 12.5%.

Mitterand was not happy with this arrangement, however, and the 1988 presidential election resulted in the unhappy scenario of the two heads of government facing each other as the major candidates. Other candidates included Union for French Democracy candidate Raymond Barre (nominally independent, but strongly supported by the UDF), National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Communist candidate Andre Lajoinie. Polls showed Mitterand in a comfortable first in the first round, followed by Chirac and Barre in the high teens.

The result was a comfortable lead for Mitterand, followed by a somewhat less comfortable second place for Chirac ahead of Barre. The big surprise was the strong result for Le Pen, who won the strongest ever result for the National Front; it was felt that part of this was due to the increased status that the large National Front caucus in the National Assembly had given the party. The Communist Party managed a disastrous 6.76%; Mitterand's mission to make the Socialists the largest party on the left had overwhelmingly succeeded. 

Mitterand had won a second term, and the fairly comfortable win emboldened him to call a new legislative election. This election saw a strong President, as leader of the largest party on his political faction, facing a right-wing divided between the National Front, the RPR and the UDF. The abolition of proportional representation meant the government had the upper hand, as they could exploit this division.

The result was a narrow win for the parties of the left. Leftist candidates won 52.71% of the seats, while the right won the remaining seats. While it was a narrow result, it did give the Socialists the option of a deal with the UDF if the Communists opposed their legislation.

The disproportionality of the system was even clearer with the rise of the National Front, who won 9.66% of the first round results, almost the same as in 1986. However, they only won a single seat (which is not visible on the graph, it's so small) instead of the 35 they managed under proportional representation. This was because of their status as a 'pariah party', whose ideology was so repugnant to the other parties that they could not form the alliances needed to win seats under the two-round system.

Mitterand appointed Socialist Michel Rocard as Prime Minister, who led the party into a midterm election for the European Parliament. This saw a complicated result, that is an interesting demonstration of the impact of the two-round system

The result was a narrow win for the Rally for the Republic-Union for French Democracy list, but it was a very weak win. Both major parties were weakened by the presence of two new parties; the Greens on the left and the Centre of Social Democrats (a centrist group that was originally part of the Union for French Democracy). The strong Green result meant that the Socialists, who had initially ignored the Greens as a fringe party, were pressured to do a deal with the Greens. The disastrous result for the Communists made it clear that the party was dead as a major political force.

In 1991, Rocard left office and was replaced by Edith Cresson. She turned out to be massively unpopular. The Socialist Party won control of only one regional government in the 1992 elections, compared to one for the Greens and 22 for right-wing candidates.

Cresson was replaced by Pierre Begovoy, who failed to improve the waning support for the left. In 1993, a legislative election took place that resulted in a hammering for the Socialists and a landslide win for the right.

The result was a disaster for the Socialists, and by extension President Mitterand, who was once again forced into cohabitation with the right. Once again, the National Front managed a strong result in the first round, and a fairly decent result in the second, but once again only one seat. The ecologists won less than half a percent in the second round, and no seats. As the Communists lost support, they also shed their pariah status. Mitterand appointed Edouard Balladur, a RPR politician, as Prime Minister.

Presidential elections took place in 1995. Mitterand, who had spent two tiring years in cohabitation and had contracted cancer, was in no position to run for another term. The Socialist Party nominated Lionel Jospin, a former minister who lost his seat in 1993, in a primary election where he won 65% of the vote. Chirac ran again, but he was opposed on the right by Balladur, who ran as a RPR candidate with support from the UDF. Early polls showed Balladur leading Chirac, but as the campaign wore on, Chirac entered into the lead.

The result was a fairly comfortable win for Chirac. Nonetheless, Jospin polled fairly well considering the poor economic situation. Le Pen won the strongest result ever for the National Front.

In an attempt to cut the deficit, Chirac introduced a number of controversial changes to the pension system. These included an increase in the period public sector workers were required to contribute to pension funds by 2.5 years, increases in health insurance contributions for the elderly and unemployed, and increases in the retirement age for public sector workers. This led to a strike of public sector workers; a strike on the railways lasted three weeks.

Despite these, the government did pass some of the changes, and Chirac, who was hoping to catch the left off guard, called a legislative election in 1997. While the RPR-UDF did have a lead in the early days of the campaign, this was worn away through the campaign.
The result was a win for the left-wing parties, who won 55% of the seats. The result saw the Greens, who had been accepted into the leftist camp, enter the National Assembly for the first time. The result showed the importance of entering an alliance with major parties; had the Greens stayed outside the left, as they had done up to now, they would have had no seats.

This represents an interesting dilemma for small parties in France; do they stay ideologically pure and have few seats in the National Assembly (the course taken by the National Front), or do they soften their ideology (the initial intention of the Greens was to stay outside both major parties) and win influence in the National Assembly?

Following the result, President Chirac appointed Lionel Jospin, the Socialist leader, as Prime Minister. This meant that the third period of cohabitation under the Fifth Republic would begin; the increasing number of different parties controlling the Presidency and National Assembly was beginning to frustrate Chirac.

European elections two years later resulted in a deeply fragmented result. The Socialist Party came first, but with just 22% of the vote, this was hardly a resounding victory. Coming up to this election, a new party called the Rally for France had split out of the Rally for the Republic. This party was led by controversial former minister Charles Pasqua, and ran on a Eurosceptic platform, and won 13%. The original Rally for the Republic won 12.8%, the Greens won 9.7%, the UDF won 9.2%, the Communists won 6.8%, a new centre-right party called Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition won 6.7%. The National Front won just 5.7%; their vote had been split by the new entrants on the centre-right.

One year later, a referendum took place on a change in term limits. The frustration at mid-term legislative elections, which were caused by presidential and legislative terms being different. The referendum abolished this by reducing presidential terms to five years. This would mean that legislative elections could follow presidential elections, thus meaning that the results would be less likely to change.

The proposal was supported by RPR, UDF and the Socialists. It was opposed by the Communist Party and by some RPR members. On the day 73.2% voters voted Yes, and the proposal passed. However, turnout was pathetically low, at just 30%, thus suggesting that voters were disinterested.

Presidential elections were scheduled for 2002, and as the election neared, Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin was in the lead. However, the large number of leftist candidates was to have an unfortunate effect on this lead.


The result put Chirac in the lead, but his main opponent Lionel Jospin did not win first place. Instead, Le Pen won second place, thus meaning that the second round would be between Chirac and Le Pen. The issue for Jospin was that leftist voters, feeling certain that Jospin would win second place, voted for minor parties in the first round.

Almost all the other candidates endorsed Chirac over Le Pen, and polls showed that Chirac would win a landslide victory over Le Pen. Leftist voters reluctantly supported Chirac, and he won the biggest victory for presidential elections in the Fifth Republic.

The result demonstrated a problem with the two-round system; while vote-splitting and the 'spoiler effect' were less of a problem, it could still be an issue.

The legislative elections later that year were another win for the forces of the right. Chirac had renamed his party the Union for a Popular Movement, and was successful in taking some support from the UDF.

The result was a comfortable majority for the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), which gave President Chirac complete control over the legislature. Importantly, the election showed that France had progressed towards a two-party system; the UDF and Communists had been marginalised and the National Front was irrelevant in terms of seats. In total, the UMP and Socialists had 86% of the seats.

The law for electing the European Parliament was changed in 2003. Previously, a national list system was used, with a 5% threshold. However, the system was changed to create eight national constituencies, with an average magnitude of 9. No threshold applied in these constituencies. The goal of this was to improve relations between members of the European Parliament and their constituents.

The result was a comfortable win for the forces of the left, although you could hardly take the results as a prediction of the presidential election. The National Front polled fairly poorly, perhaps due to the presence of the Movement for France, a new Eurosceptic party.

President Chirac chose not to run for re-election in 2007, and he was replaced as UMP candidate by Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy was a fairly right-wing candidate within the UMP, and the UDF chose to nominate an alternative candidate, who was Francois Bayrou. The Socialist Party chose Segoilene Royal, a member of the National Assembly and a minister under Mitterand, following a ballot of party members in which she won 60.6%. Jean-Marie Le Pen ran as the National Front candidate, but he lost support to Sarkozy, and was polling in fourth place. Sarkozy was in first, with Royal and Bayrou fighting for second and a place in the runoff.

Following this result, the two candidates in the runoff were clamouring for the endorsement of the most prominent candidate in the second round, Bayrou. It was generally expected that he would endorse Sarkozy, as most previous UDF presidential candidates had done. However, he decided not to endorse either candidate, and further announced that he would form a new party. Sarkozy decided to run heavily to the right in the runoff, in the hope of picking up some of Le Pen's votes (Le Pen had called for an abstention).

Following this result, opinion polls showed the UMP on course for a landslide win in the legislative elections. While Bayrou's political party (called the Democratic Movement, or MoDem) was fairly strong, its position outside the two major parties put it in a similar position to the National Front. While the party did have fairly strong support, it was rarely enough to make it into the second round in districts, thus meaning that despite their moderate ideology they would not win too many seats.

Sarkozy's move to the right had an obvious effect, with the National Front vote tanking, and the party winning no seats. MoDem polled fairly well in the first round, but the low second round vote shows that few candidates ran in the second round, and even fewer were elected (the party won only 3 seats). This result showed that the two-round system did not just disadvantage extreme parties; it disadvantaged all parties outside the two major blocks.

Over the next five years, the Global Economic Crisis unfolded, and Sarkozy's popularity took a hit. However, there was an important start to a change in France's constitution. Sarkozy proposed an amendment to the Constitution to introduce a two-term limit for the Presidency, the right for the President to address the National Assembly, and allowed some more parliamentary control over the government. The amendment was passed in a joint sitting of the National Assembly and Senate, with 539 votes out of 538 needed.

The crisis meant that Sarkozy was put into a tight race for re-election in 2012. The Socialist Party held an open primary to choose their presidential candidate. Francois Hollande, a former leader of the party, was elected, winning 39.1% in the first round and 56.6% in the second (interestingly, Hollande was up against Segolene Royal, who was not only the Socialist presidential candidate in 2007, but Hollande's former wife. She won 7%, and did not make it to the second round).

There was also something of a change in the National Front. For the first time ever, the National Front presidential candidate was not Jean-Marie Le Pen. Instead, his daughter Marine Le Pen was the candidate. Marine was viewed as something of a new image for the party, which she hoped to turn away from the cranky fundamentalism of her father.

Following the first round, the candidates who did not make it into the second round made their endorsements. Melenchon, Bayrou, Joly and Poutou all endorsed Hollande, while only Dupont-Aigian endorsed Sarkozy. Le Pen did not endorse.

This put Sarkozy in a position of needing to chase after National Front votes. He was fairly successful at this, and the polls tightened up in the runoff race. However, Hollande was able to win, albeit narrower than what was expected in the early days of the election.
The legislative elections scheduled for a month later were expected to result in a win for the Socialists. The increase in the National Front obviously would have little affect on the seat distribution, but it would be concerning for the major parties.

The Fifth Republic

The Fifth Republic has been fairly stable, as French governments go. Exactly what impact the power of the president has had on this is not clear, but certainly France has had longer-lasting and more stable government. Of course, the change to a presidential system is not the only issue, but it has clearly had some impact.

The impact of the two-round system on the party system is fairly clear. Political scientist Maurice Duverger is well known for Duverger's Law, a hypothesis where he claimed that the two-round system would lead to a party system with two large groups comprised of smaller parties. France certainly has this, with a few client parties on the left (Greens, Radicals) and a few on the right (Centrist Alliance, right-wing Radicals).

The existence of the National Front, and its strong performance in recent elections, has put pressure on this system. The most recent European election resulted in the National Front being the largest party (albeit with only 24.8% of the vote) and they look likely to make significant gains in recent times.

What impact has the two-round system had on the National Front? Its proponents say that it has reduced extremism in French politics, and has kept the National Assembly moderate. However, it could also be claimed that the system has meant that politicians from the major parties are unresponsive to political change, which has led to dissatisfaction with politicians, which has led to the rise of extremism.

In terms of presidential power, the powers given to the President are fairly broad compared to the other countries of Europe, which are mostly parliamentary. However, the National Assembly still has control over the instruments of government, as the Prime Minister requires its confidence. The National Assembly also has supreme legislative power, because the President does not have a veto. The shortening of legislative terms has meant that different parties controlling houses is rare, but in the event that it happens, there is a change in the people who hold executive power.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Electoral Systems of the World-France (extended) (Part 2 of 3)

Previous post-Electoral Systems of the World-France (Part 1 of 2)

Note: This post has turned out to be a bit longer than expected, and so I'm splitting it up into three.

Following the end of the Nazi occupation of France, an election took place in October 1945 for the National Assembly. Alongside this election, a referendum took place. This referendum asked voters whether they approved the National Assembly writing a new constitution, and whether they approved the application of an interim constitution.

Voters overwhelmingly endorsed both proposals; 96% approved the National Assembly writing a new constitution, while 66.5% voted in favour of the interim constitution. This result reflected dissatisfaction with the institutions of the Third Republic, as had the majority voted No in the first referendum, France would revert to the institutions of the Third Republic.

The results of the legislative elections were fairly fragmented. The electoral system used was party-list proportional representation. 522 members, including 62 from the substantial French colonies, would be elected. Each department would receive one Member of the National Assembly for every 100,000 inhabitants, and an extra MNA for every 25,000 after that. The minimum number of members for each department was two, and if a department had more than nine seats, it was divided into multiple constituencies with fewer than nine seats each.

Departments of France (Wikimedia)
Parties submitted closed lists, with a number of candidates equal to the number of seats to be distributed. Seats were distributed between the parties by first dividing the number of votes by the number of seats to be distributed (the Hare quota) and giving lists a seat for each quota they had. Remaining seats were distributed using the D'Hondt system.

This system provided fairly proportional representation, although the low number of members in each constituency meant that proportionality would be somewhat limited. The formula for the effective threshold (share of the vote needed for a party to win a seat) is defined by The Politics of Electoral Systems as t=0.75*(1/m+1), where t=effective threshold and m=district magnitude (number of seats in each district).

In the smallest possible constituency, electing two members, the effective threshold would be 25%, while the largest possible constituency would have an effective threshold of 7.5%. This is a fairly high threshold for nationwide niche parties to surmount, although it would not be so hard for local parties to win seats. As French electoral record-keeping is fairly patchy, I cannot figure out the average district magnitude, and so I can't tell the average nationwide effective threshold. However, I assume that it would be relatively high.

The system did not prevent fragmentation, however, as the election result was fairly fragmented.



The result meant that not only the major forces of the Third Republic (the Radical Socialists and Conservatives) were defeated, but that no party was even close to a majority. This created significant problems for future writing of the constitution, as the parties had differing views on what system of Government France should have.

Following the election, General Charles de Gaulle, a leader of the resistance against the German occupation, remained as Prime Minister, with the support of the Communists, Popular Republicans, and Socialists. However, he was dissatisfied with the need to include opposition parties in his cabinet, and in January 1946, he resigned. He was replaced by another member of the effective 'three-party alliance', Socialist Felix Gouin.

While this was all happening, the Constitutional Assembly was writing a new constitution. This was a point of serious difference between the parties. The Socialists and Communists favoured a parliamentary system of government, with a unicameral parliament; as they held the majority, it was this proposal that was to be presented to the voters to be approved in a referendum. The proposal was opposed by the Radicals, Conservatives, and Popular Republicans. The Popular Republicans favoured a presidential system, while the position of the Radicals and Conservatives were less clear, although one could assume they would support a return to the Third Republic's political system of parliamentary bicameralism.

The referendum saw the proposal defeated, with 52.8% voting No. This was a serious challenge to the Communists and Socialists, as the result made it clear that they were going to need to compromise with the other parties in order to pass a constitution.

One month after the referendum, another election was held to the Constitutional Assembly. The electoral system was the same. Voters elected a fairly similar assembly, although the Socialist-Communist alliance in favour of a unicameral parliamentary system lost their majority.

As a result of this loss, the Socialists and Communists realised that they would have to compromise with one of the other parties in order to present another constitution to the electorate. Over the next few months, a new constitution was written.

This called for a parliamentary system of government, which was the general consensus amongst France's political parties. However, the unicameral parliament was abandoned, and instead a bicameral parliament was decided upon. The Senate, the upper house, would be re-introduced, although it would be called the Council of the Republic. It would have 320 members, elected by electoral colleges (groups of local councillors) based on department boundaries. It would only be able to delay legislation, and the National Assembly was clearly the most important house.

The lower house, the National Assembly, would have 618 members. They would be elected through a party-list system of proportional representation similar to the one used for the Constitutional Assembly. 

Sizes of constituencies would still be determined by departments, and large departments would be broken up into multiple constituency sizes; the largest constituency size increased to eleven, which is still fairly small. Certain overseas constituencies only elected a single member; these constituencies used the single-member plurality system.

Voters voted for candidates within parties by ranking them in the order of their preferences, and they voted for one party only. 

After the votes were counted, the seats were distributed to the parties using the D'Hondt system, with no threshold except the effective one created by the low district magnitude. Seats would then be allocated to candidates by examining the rankings.

If a majority of voters for a party had not expressed preferences, the party's list ranking would be used to determine the allocation of seats to parties. If a majority of voters for a party expressed preferences, then these rankings were used to determine who filled the seats. This was done by first counting up the ballots, and determining the candidate with the most first-ranks. This candidate would be the first elected. Then, all first and second ballots were counted up, and the candidate with the most of these who was not already ranked would be second. This process would continue until all the list rankings had been filled.

The nation would still be a Republic, and, as such, it was the duty of both houses of parliament to elect a mainly ceremonial president. His job was to propose a government.

The constitution was approved by referendum in October, when 53% voted Yes. This was a fairly narrow result, and indicated that the constitution did not have such strong support and was still fairly controversial.

The first election to the new National Assembly took place in November 1946. The results were fairly similar to the previous Constitutional Assembly, although, as you will see, there were a few new entrants.


The results saw the Communists become the largest party, and the Socialists take a back-seat in the three-party alliance that had governed France since the end of the war. The supporters of General Charles de Gaulle, who supported the introduction of a presidential government, won a small foothold in the Assembly. The Communist-Popular Republican-Socialist alliance continued in government.

The new government faced a wide variety of problems. France was in ruins after the Second World War, and the new government needed to start the tough job of national reconstruction. Inflation was also high. France was also still a colonial power, with many land holdings in Africa and Asia. With the weakness of the French central government, some of these colonies began revolting against the central government.

The inclusion of the Communists in government did not go unnoticed in the United States, who were concerned about the spread of Communism. Shortly after the election, the Communist Party were thrown out of government, in response to their support for the Communist insurgency in Vietnam.

In their place, a coalition government was formed called the Third Force. This was a coalition of the Socialists, the Popular Republican Movement, the Conservatives, and the Radical Socialists. The coalition was intended to be centrist, and to oppose the Communists from the left and the supporters of Charles de Gaulle (Gaullists) on the right.

The coalition started off well, but any French government at the time was going to struggle. As the 1951 election approached, the Third Force parties decided to implement a change in the electoral system, to give themselves a better chance at power.

The new system would still be based off party-list proportional representation. However, a number of changes were made.

Parties could now ally with each other, and, if a group of allied parties won a majority of the votes in a district, they would win all the seats in that district. If no party or group of parties won a majority, the seats would be distributed under the normal system. Only minor changes were made to district magnitude.

The system was clearly designed to advantage the Third Force parties, as they could form alliances with each other and win the majority in districts, thus winning all the seats. The Gaullists and Communists, both ideologically extreme parties, would struggle to form alliances with allies, and would thus do worse in terms of seats.

An exception to this law, however, existed; two inner Paris districts, as well as three overseas districts, would continue to use proportional representation, without the majority clause. This was because the inner Paris districts were both very large, and strongly Communist. The government wanted to deprive the Communists of this source of seats.

The Third Force government, however, did not do very well at the next election, despite this system.
Overall, the parties of the Third Force won 50.5% of the vote and 62.6% of the seats; a victory, but a far cry from 1946, when the parties (at that point not in coalition) had won 69.4% of the vote. The electoral system's effects were obvious; the Gaullists and Communists were both under-represented, while all of the Third Force parties were over-represented.

The political system was extremely fragmented, seeing as the largest party in terms of seats (the Gaullists) held less than 20% of the seats. This would make the formation of any government difficult, but the tight left-right balance within the Third Front would make this even more difficult; the broad left (Socialists+Radical Socialists) had 31.5% of the seats, while the right (Popular Republicans+Conservatives) had 31.1%.

Over the next few years, France was ruled by a series of short-lived governments. The Third Force coalition broke up, and governments became single-party affairs, lasting for a year at the most. The French governments were mired in colonial wars, which caused social discord and significant expense.

In June of 1954, the French forces were defeated by the Vietnamese communists at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. This defeat showed that France continuing to try to hold on to Vietnam would be a waste of time, and so Radical Prime Minister Pierre Mendes-France decided to negotiate with Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh. The decision was made to withdraw French forces from Vietnam, and to divide the country in two, so that Ho Chi Minh and the Communists would control the North, and Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai would control a new state in the South.

This decision did not endear him to French nationalists, and proved to be very controversial. Despite this, Pierre-France then decided to negotiate with leaders in Morocco and Tunisia to make those two territories independent, but was unable to do anything about Algeria, which was becoming the big issue in French politics. In the end, he resigned, and was replaced by another Radical politician.

The election in 1956 resulted in another heavily fragmented parliament. The Communists retained their status as the largest party.

The election also saw the entry into parliament of the far-right Poujadist movement, which had risen in support at least partially in response to the loss of France's colonial territories. While the Gaullist result seems small, it seems that Gaullist politicians had left the official Gaullist party, and had spread amongst the other Conservatives.

A coalition of the centre was once again formed, comprising the Socialists, Popular Republicans, and Radical Socialists. This coalition was led by Socialist Guy Mollet, who had the awful task of balancing the unpopularity and controversy of continuing military action in Algeria with the unpopularity and controversy of abandoning the French settlers in the country, all with only vague control over the Parliament.

Mollet's term did not last, as he erred in favour of a pro-settler position in the Algerian conflict, and thus lost his support from the Radicals after a year. His Radical successors, Radical Maurice Bourges-Maunory and Felix Gaillard, only lasted months, as the Algerian situation slowly disintegrated.

Following Gaillard's defeat in Parliament, Pierre Pfemlin, a Popular Republican, was elected Prime Minister. Pfemlin was in favour of negotiating with the Algerian separatists.

This was the last straw for the Algerian settlers. The Governor of Algeria refused to recognise Pfemlin as their leader, and launched a military coup in order to overthrow the Fourth Republic.
The coup leaders demanded Charles de Gaulle be installed as Prime Minister.

Algerian French forces invaded Tunisia, and it became clear that the weak Paris government would not survive such a coup. On the first of June, 1958, de Gaulle became Prime Minister of France, and set about introducing a new constitution.

The Fifth Republic

De Gaulle had made no secret of his dislike for parliamentary government, and the collapse of the Fourth Republic had discredited the system entirely in the eyes of the French Populace; it had done what Napoleon the Third's dictatorship and Patrice MacMahon's dismissal of a Republican Prime Minister had done for presidentialism.

But now, these events were far behind, and seemed petty and irrelevant compared to the obvious failure of the Fourth Republic. As a result, it was decided to have a presidential constitution. 

The first part of the new Constitution established clearly the President as head of government, a rarity in Europe. He would appoint the Prime Minister, who would choose a Cabinet. He would not, however, have a veto over legislation; he would only have the power to ask for more debate to be held on legislation by the National Assembly. He could dissolve the National Assembly once a year with consultation with the Prime Minister.

Bicameralism would be retained in France, with the National Assembly (the lower house) being directly elected, while the Senate (the upper house) being indirectly elected by representatives of the local councils. The houses would have maximum sizes of 577 and 348 respectively. Both houses would have equal power, though the National Assembly would become the prominent house.

Importantly, the National Assembly would still have some control over the Government. For a start, the government does have the option to have a motion of confidence on itself. If 10% of members signed a petition calling for one, a confidence vote can also take place in the Government. This confidence vote could not affect the President, who would remain in office despite this. However, if a majority of members of the National Assembly voted for a no-confidence motion, the Prime Minister and Cabinet would either resign, or the President would request a dissolution.

One of the important aspects of the new republic would be the electoral system. Charles de Gaulle was strongly opposed to proportional representation, and the (not especially) proportional electoral system of the Fourth Republic was blamed for its weak and ineffective governments. It was decided that a two-round system would be used.

A two-round system would have a number of advantages for the government. It would mean that the right would be able to stay united, as the more moderate Christian Democrats and the Gaullists could compete against each other in the first round, and the most popular could run in the second round. The system would also mean that if an extremist from the right or the left (at this point, usually from the left) won the most votes, he would be defeated by a more moderate candidate, as the moderates from both sides of the political spectrum would oppose him.

One choice was left to be made, then. The government had the option of using single-member districts, or multi-member districts. If the latter was chosen, the system would be that parties would put up a list of candidates in a district, and the party that won the majority (using the two-round system) would win all the seats.

Now, at first glance, you might think that de Gaulle would have naturally supported this system. After all, with the left being weak, it would give the right a landslide majority in the new assembly. However, there was one serious disadvantage. De Gaulle felt that the massive right backbench that would result from this electoral system would be in favour of Algeria remaining French, which would tie his hands in negotiations with Algeria.

So, it was decided that France would have a single-member two-round system. Voters would vote for one candidate, and if no candidate won a majority of the votes and one-quarter of the enrolled voters in the district, a second round would take place. Any candidate who won 5% of the votes in the first round could move on to the second round, and the candidate who won the most votes in the second round would be elected, regardless of if they won a majority.

The first election to take place under the new system took place later that year. The results were, as predicted, a comfortable win for the forces of the right.


'
No doubt you will notice something of a disproportionality in the above results. The Communists won 20.7% of the second round vote, but only 2.15% of the seats. This was the electoral system working its magic. As the Communists were something of a 'pariah party', other parties teamed up against them.

The other effects of the system were clear too. 42.2% of voters voted in the second round for the leftist parties, but the left only won 18% of the seats. The majoritarianism of the new electoral system was to heavily influence the progress of the new republic.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Electoral Systems of the World-France (Part 1 of 2)

France is one of the world's oldest democracies, and one of the first republics in Europe. It has used many different governmental systems over the years, from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy to republican parliamentarism to empire to presidentialism. Over this period of time, a wide variety of electoral systems have been used, all of which have had different impacts.

The early days

Direct elections with wide suffrage are a fairly new idea in the world. Most elections for national legislatures in the 18th and 19th centuries either had limited suffrage or were indirect. For the most part, France was no different.

The first legislative election in France took place in 1791, directly after the French Revolution. These elections were held under the monarchy, and as such did not offer extremely broad suffrage. Voters over the age of 25 who paid taxes were entitled to vote for electors; 100 voters for each elector. These electors would then vote for members of the unicameral National Assembly.

This election had three significant political groups. The Jacobins, the furthest-left group, won 136 seats, while the centrist Marais won 345 seats and the pro-monarchy Feuillants won 264 seats. An electoral system with a tax-paying requirement would disadvantage the Jacobins, whose voter base was weighted towards poor voters.

Of course, after this, the constitutional monarchy collapsed when the King was executed. In 1792, a new electoral law was introduced for the republic by the Constitutional Convention. Suffrage was extended to all people over the age of 21 who had not accepted poor relief. However, this law was never implemented, owing to the Constitutional Convention adopting all powers and making Robespierre dictator.

Robespierre fell in 1794, and a new constitution was implemented. This created government by the French Directory, which had a bicameral legislature. The Council of Five Hundred was the lower house, with 500 members, while the Council of Ancients was the upper house. The houses elected five Directors, who held executive power.

These legislatures were elected for three-year terms one-third at a time. Suffrage was limited to taxpayers who were 21, and elections were to become indirect once again.

The new parliaments also had a three-party system. The Marais was still there, as well as a royalist group split between moderate constitutional monarchists and ultra-monarchists. The third group was the Thermidorians, a centre-right republican group.

Only two elections were held under this new constitution before Napoleon Bonaparte's coup, and so it's kind of hard to outline any long-term trends. This is in addition to France's long tradition of lousy electoral record keeping.

Bonaparte's coup was confirmed by a referendum in 1800, where 99.94% of voters voted in favour of the heavily authoritarian constitution. While elections still took place, most power was vested in three consuls, of which Napoleon was one. The elections under this period were not recorded, as this republic only lasted only four years, until Napoleon declared France to be an Empire. Elections under the Empire were not recorded either.

Return to a Monarchy

In 1815, the monarchy was restored to France. A bicameral parliament was introduced. The upper house was called the Chamber of Peers, and it was appointed by the King for life terms. The Chamber of Deputies was the lower house, with 402 members. This monarchy is known as the 'Bourbon Monarchy'

Voting rights for the lower house were severely limited. Only people who paid more than 300 Francs in tax (quite a substantial sum) could vote, thus reducing voting rights to 0.3% of the population, while only those who paid 1000 Francs in tax could be elected, thus reducing the possible pool of candidates to 0.07% of the population. The electoral system used multi-member constituencies where voters could vote for exactly the number of members to be elected.

An electoral system such as this would be expected to favour pro-royalist and wealthy (the two groups tended to overlap) parties. And, to no one's surprise, the ultra-royalists won a big majority in the first legislature.

For the second election in 1816, a new electoral system was introduced. The citizens who paid the most tax were entitled to vote for 40% of members, while all voters (including those who had already voted) voted for the remaining 60%.

Now, it would be expected that such an electoral system would favour the parties of the wealthy, and this is indeed what happened. Conservative parties won 228 out of 258 seats, divided between 136 for the moderate right and 92 for the ultra-royalists, while only 30 leftist candidates were elected, divided between 20 for the republican/Bonapartist left and 10 for the liberal left.

In the 1820 election, this pattern continued. The conservatives won 384 out of 464 seats, while the liberal leftist group won the remaining 80 seats. Similar results happened in 1824, when 413 conservatives were elected compared to just 17 for the liberals.

The 1827 results were something different entirely. The liberals won an astonishing 180 seats, the same as the ultra-royalists. The moderate right won only 70 seats. While the combined right did win a majority, this legislature did not last long, and another election was held in 1830.

This election took place during the overthrow of the absolute monarchy and its replacement by the more liberal July Monarchy, and candidates favourable to the overthrow won 274 seats, to just 104 seats for the government.

The new monarchy made some changes to the electoral law; the tax requirement for voting was lowered to 200 francs, members of certain universities were permitted to vote without paying that amount of tax, and membership of the Chamber of Peers on family ties was banned, while the requirement for running for office was lowered to 500 francs.

While these reforms hardly turned France into a liberal democracy, they were certainly positive changes for democracy. The first elections under the new constitution were held in 1831, and these resulted in a win for the moderate liberals, who won 282 out of 459 seats. Supporters of the previous monarchy won 104 seats, while republicans won 73 seats.

As you can see, the broadening of the franchise advantaged liberals, but was not broad enough to allow more radical candidates to prosper.

The statistics from the next election, in 1834, are a bit harder to follow. A new conservative party seems to have been formed, which won 320 seats, to 75 for the opposition liberals, 50 for the seemingly liberal Third Party, and 15 for supporters of the previous monarchy.

The 1837 election saw a number of new parties form.

There was no majority for any party, and as such, another election was held two years later. At this election, the left formed themselves into a single group, which won 240 seats out of 459, while candidates in favour of the current monarchy won 199 seats, and candidates in favour of the previous monarchy won 20 seats.

The next election, held in 1842, saw further political consolidation. The conservatives organised themselves into a party, and the liberals and socialists organised themselves into another, thus creating a two-party system. The conservative party won 266 seats, to 193 for the liberal-socialist party. This continued in the next election, which turned out to be the final election of the French monarchy.

In 1848, a revolution took place in France to overthrow the monarchy, which, despite being more liberal than its predecessors, people had grown frustrated with. High unemployment and poor working conditions created discontent against the King, and, after riots in Paris, the King abdicated and fled to London.

A Democratic Republic

A provisional government was established, led by poet (only in France!) Alphonse de Lamartine, and universal suffrage was declared, thus increasing the voting population from 240,000 to 8.2 million, and a constitutional assembly was announced.

This assembly would have 880 members. It would be elected using a variation of multiple non-transferable vote. Voters would be able to vote for as many candidates as there were seats to be filled, but candidates had to win 2000 votes to be elected. If they did not, a runoff election would be held 14 days later.

The election to the Constitutional Assembly had the following results.


The result gave supporters of the liberal republican order a comfortable majority, and thus meant that a new constitution would not have much more difficulty in being passed.

This new constitution was adopted in November. It called for a National Assembly with 750 members, elected through universal suffrage. The electoral system used for the Constitutional Assembly was retained. Given that the new nation was to be a republic, it was decided that a President would have to be elected. This was to be done directly, but through a variation of the two-round system; if no candidate won a majority in the direct vote, the National Assembly would pick the winner.

The first presidential election took place later that year, in 1848. This resulted in a win for Napoleon the Third, who won 74.4% of the vote to 19.6% to Moderate Republican candidate Louis-Eugine Cavaignac and 5% for Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, the Socialist candidate. Napoleon was a populist, who was able to win through his opposition to radical republicanism, his vaguely left-wing economics, and his strong name recognition.

The next year, a legislative election took place. 


This assembly clashed with President Napoleon, and in 1850 the Conservative majority passed a law restricting suffrage, which Napoleon did not like. This was used as justification for a coup, which took place in December of 1851. This coup was followed by a referendum, where 92% voted in favour of giving Napoleon the authority to write a new constitution. By 1852, Napoleon was firmly in control of the French government, and like his father, he was determined to keep it that way.

The Second Empire

Napoleon decided to write a new constitution, modelled after the one his uncle introduced. The major part of the constitution was his own crowing as Emperor, with fairly broad powers. His strong result in the presidential election convinced him that universal suffrage would be to his advantage, and so it was re-introduced for the lower house. An upper house was introduced, comprised of members of the military and clergy, along with members appointed by the Emperor.

The electoral system used for the lower house was fairly simple. France's regions, called departments, were given a member of the lower house for every 35,000 voters (a voter was defined as a male citizen over the age of 21 who had lived in their district for six months or more. The departments were divided into a number of constituencies equal to the number of members of the lower house.

A majoritarian two-round system was used, with candidates required to win a majority of the votes in the first round as well as 25% of the total eligible electorate. If no candidate won a majority or 25% of the eligible electorate, another election would be held. Under the Napoleonic system, anyone eligible for election could stand in this second ballot, and the candidate with the most votes was elected. Voting was nominally secret, but apparently this was violated. The government strongly supported their candidates by gerrymandering, ballot stuffing, and voter intimidation, thus making these elections more of a charade than genuine democracy.

The first election under the new constitution took place in 1852. To absolutely nobody's surprise, pro-Napoleon candidates won 253 out of 261 seats, off 86.55% of the (officially reported) vote. Candidates opposing Napoleon's rule won 13.45% and 8 seats, 3 of which were won by Republicans and 5 by Monarchists.

The 1857 election had almost identical results.  Napoleon's popularity was still fairly strong, but the election was obviously heavily rigged against opposition candidates. Most republicans and monarchists refused to participate, but five republicans were elected, with 10.9% of the vote. Pro-Napoleon candidates won the remaining 89.1% and 276 seats.

However, the 1862 election saw a bit of change, for the first time. A slowing economy and growing opposition caused by liberalisations meant that the government, while not being seriously challenged, faced the threat of a serious opposition caucus.

The result was, once again, a comfortable majority for the pro-Napoleon candidates. Republicans won 32 seats, and monarchists won 15 seats: in total, opposition candidates won about 25.8% of the vote. The liberalisations encouraged more opposition voters to turn out, and turnout increased to 75% of the vote. Pro-Napoleon candidates won 251 seats and 74.2%; the beneficiaries of strong rural support and voter suppression.

The Second Empire was losing popularity under Napoleon's rule, and the 1869 election reflected this. The pro-Napoleon faction had divided into two groups; the liberals and the authoritarians. The liberal candidates won 120 seats, and the authoritarians won 98 seats: in total, pro-Napoleon candidates won 55% of the vote. Republicans won 30 seats, and monarchists won 41, and in total 45% of people voted for opposition candidates.

The empire did not last long after this. The French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War led to a revolution overthrowing the Second Empire. Napoleon fled the country, and a new republican government was formed.

A French Republic-third time lucky?

The new government was to be a republic, and this new government were interested in holding elections as soon as possible. As a result, they decided not to write a new electoral law, instead using the system used from 1849. 

"This assembly would have 880 members. It would be elected using a variation of multiple non-transferable vote. Voters would be able to vote for as many candidates as there were seats to be filled, but candidates had to win 2000 votes to be elected. If they did not, a runoff election would be held 14 days later."

The assembly would have some changes; only 768 members would be elected (in theory, but the Prussian occupation of the north of the country meant that only 675 members would be elected). The wartime situation meant that the campaign wasn't especially competitive, but it was clearly more liberal than elections under Napoleon.

The election resulted in a majority for pro-monarchist candidates, who were more in favour of peace with the German Empire than the more nationalist republicans.

Later in that year, a number of by-elections were held. These resulted in a win for republicans; radical republicans won 35, moderate republicans won 38, and Catholic republicans won 26 seats. Supporters of the Bourbons won 9 seats, and pro-Napoleon candidates and Orleanists won 3 seats each.

The 1849 electoral law was not to last long, and in 1873 the monarchist majority voted for the return to the majoritarian 1852 electoral system, introduced by Napoleon the Third.

A two-round system was used, with candidates required to win a majority of the votes in the first round. If no candidate won a majority, another election would be held. Under the Napoleonic system, anyone eligible for election could stand in this second ballot, and the candidate with the most votes was elected.

A republican constitution was eventually introduced in 1875. This constitution called for a bicameral parliament, with a lower house initially comprised of 533 members that would be directly elected by the Napoleonic system. An upper house, called the Senate, was introduced. This body would have 300 members. 75 of these would be elected by the parliament for life, while the remaining members would be elected by electoral colleges (groups of local politicians) for nine-year terms. One-third of members were elected every third years. The president would be elected by the National Assembly for a seven-year term.

The first election under this constitution took place in 1876, and the results were a majority for the republicans.
The result was a comfortable win for the Republicans, who ensured that France's new constitution would stay in place. However, the new parliament only lasted a year. President Patrice de MacMahon, a Royalist, demanded the resignation of Republican prime minister Julius Simon, and replaced him with a royalist. The National Assembly refused to support the new government, and so MacMahon dissolved the National Assembly.

The next election, in 1877, saw the Republicans form into a single party, in order to protest the decision of President McMahon.

As you can see, the election resulted in a win for the Republicans, and a decisive rejection for President MacMahon. He soon resigned, and the event reduced the likelihood of dissolution in France's political future.

Over the next few years, France's republicans were dominant. Socialist groups began to emerge, but they were generally weak. The graph below shows the balance of power between the major groups over this period.

An electoral system change did take place in 1885, when a block vote system was introduced. One member was appointed for every 70,000 votes, and seats were distributed by department. Voters would have as many votes as there were members to be elected. Candidates had to receive a vote from 50% of the voters to be elected. Candidates who did not win this progressed into the second round, where the candidates only needed to be the highest polling. This was repealed in 1889.

As you can see, the dominant faction was the moderate republicans up until 1898.

The game began to change in 1902, when the socialists allied with the left of the republicans to create the Left Block. The results of that election are below.


The Left Block won a narrow majority, but the government didn't last, and in the 1906 election, the old coalition of the centre and centre-left won a majority, winning 340 out of 585 seats. The left-wing won 74 seats, and 174 were won by the right.

This happened once again in 1910, when the centre-left and centre won 371 seats out of 595. The socialists won 75 seats, and 149 seats for the right.

The 1914 election saw an increase in support for the left, who won 126 seats to 349 to the centre and 75 for the right. This might be seen as support for the anti-war position of the left and a shift from the centrists to the left. No election took place during the First World War, and all major parties formed a wartime coalition that lasted until the 1919 election.

After the First World War, a number of changes took place in French governance. A proportional representation system was introduced. Constituencies were multi-member, and one member was appointed for every 75,000 citizens. Candidates could either stand for office as independents or as members of a list. Voters had as many votes as there were seats. They could vote for candidates of different parties.

Counting was done in three stages. In the first round, candidates who had won a majority of the vote were elected. In the second round, the Hare quota (votes divided by seats) was calculated, and the average votes per candidate was calculated for every list (the total number of votes for a list divided by the number of candidates). Parties were given seats based on how many times the electoral quota fitted into the average, and remaining seats were distributed based on the highest averages.

On these lists, candidates were required to win 150% of the list average to be elected on their own steam, and otherwise candidates were elected based on the list order. Individual candidates were required to win with 50%.

A runoff system, normally quite a rarity in party-list systems, was added on to this system. If turnout was below 50%, or if no list won the Hare quota, an election was held 14 days later where these restrictions did not apply.

The election results saw a win for centre to centre-right republicans.
The National Bloc, a coalition of the Republican Union, the Democratic Republicans, the Independent Radicals, and the Conservatives, won 53.4% of the votes and 68% of the seats. The election was highly fragmented, but this was nothing unusual in that time in France.

The next election, in 1924, was notable not just for the consolidation of the right into the Republican Union, but also the electoral début of the new French Communist Party.

The coalition of the Socialists and the Radical Republicans won 46.2% of the seats and 38% of the votes, and won government. However, due to controversies surrounding German reparations, the government fell, and a coalition government of the radicals and Republican Union was formed.

The next election took place in 1928, and the results were once again fairly divided..

The election resulted in 55% of the seats for the right and 42% for the non-communist left, a win for the right, although not a landslide, and certainly a result that showed the French parties as divided.

In 1932, another election saw a change of government, to the left this time. This election saw the left form into a second coalition, including the radicals and socialists, but not the communists, who were still a pariah party.

The election saw a majority for the left, and showed the instability and fragmentation of French politics at the time. Voters, especially those on the right, were divided between many factional parties, even though these parties soon coalesced into coalitions.

This began to reduce in the 1936 election, when the number of parties was reduced dramatically. For the first time ever, the Communist Party entered into a deal with the parties of the more respectable left.

Note: The somewhat odd looking results on the right group in this graph are due to vote totals being available for the two right-leaning parties, but seat totals only available for the alliance between them known as the 'National Front'. Yes, I know it's confusing.

The Third Republic did not last long after this election. Germany was rapidly rearming, and the weak French government was unable to mount an effective defence. In 1940, the German Army occupied France, and the Third Republic was over.

Despite its instabilty (the 1936-1940 parliament had seen fifteen Prime Ministers), the Third Republic had been remarkably stable, compared to the empire. It had also created a political consensus around republicanism, thus making any return to the monarchy after the Second World War impossible.

The government had also been fairly democratic, compared to previous governments. However, at the end of the republic, the voting public were heavily polarised between left and right. This would create problems in the future, but would also stick around.

In terms of electoral systems, the proportional representation system could hardly be blamed for the increase in the number of parties. This behaviour was already encouraged by the two-round system, which did not penalise large numbers of parties on each side of politics. This is because the two-round system allows factional parties within the left and right to contest the first round, and the highest polling parties of the left and right to contest the second round.

The parliamentary system was also a legacy of the Third Republic. The monarchy and empires, which had strong executives, created an association of presidentialism with dictatorship. The result of the 1848 presidential election also stoked concern amongst elites that, given the chance, the country would vote for a populist dictator.

In effect, the political system of France had been shaped by fairly old events. And, as you will see, this 'conventional wisdom' would be profoundly challenged by events following the Second World War.