[Debate] (Fwd) Elections in France and the US: rules matter (Immanuel Wallerstein)
pbond at mail.ngo.za
Sun Apr 1 15:54:54 BST 2012
Commentary No. 326, April 1, 2012
"Elections in France and the United States:The Same and So Very Different"
In 2012, two very important and highly contested presidential elections
are taking place in France (April 22) and the United States (November6).
Virtually the same issues are being debated in each country, and almost
in the same manner. And in both countries, the president is the most
powerful political figure. But there is one very great difference
between the two: not ideology but the rules of the election. Different
rules breed strikingly different electoral tactics.
In both countries, there are two major parties which have historically
presented themselves as essentially center-right versus center-left.
Observers of most political persuasions agree that the actual policies
of the two parties, when in power, are not that different. Yet there do
exist a few differences that each feels is crucial, and these
differences motivate each group to pursue presidential elections
In both countries, there exists what might be called an extreme right
and a radical left. The extreme right and the radical left denounce the
two "centrist" parties as tweedledum and tweedledee, and call for a
political platform that is really right and really left. This plays out
however in a quite different manner because of the very different
In the United States, the election takes place in 50 separate units -
the states - on a winner-take-all basis for a specific number of votes
in what is called an "electoral college." This system makes it extremely
difficult for "third parties" to have any real impact on the decision of
who gets elected. Still, there are always some who are unmoved by this
and run candidates anyway. Sometimes doing this does affect the results
in a few states, and thereby affects the final results. For example, in
2000, some analysts argue that the candidacy of Ralph Nader took enough
votes away from the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, to deprive him of
electoral victory in two states. And therefore, it is sometimes said,
Nader's candidacy resulted in Bush's election.
In the past, the extreme right in the United States tended to abstain
from electoral participation on the grounds that the Republican Party
was too "liberal" for their taste. But about twenty years ago, this
group decided that the way to affect the outcome was to go inside the
Republican Party and force it, by contesting Republicans that were too
“centrist” in party primaries, to choose more "conservative" candidates.
These days, this group goes largely by the label of the "Tea Party."
This "entry"-tactic has been highly successful, and the Republican Party
has indeed moved significantly to the right in the last dozen years or so.
In France, elections work quite differently. For one thing, they are
national; there are no electoral sub-units. For a second, unless a
candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there is always a second
round of elections, in which the two parties with the largest
percentages on the first ballot are the only choice that is offered.
This system allows, indeed encourages, groups of all political varieties
to present a presidential candidate in the first round, since the voters
know that they can give their vote on the second round to one of the two
principal parties. The first round serves as a demonstration of popular
strength, serving primarily to affect, they hope, the policies of the
winning party after the second round.
The French system does have one flaw. Both major parties must get enough
votes to be in the second round. In 2002, and quite exceptionally, the
left-center party, the Socialists, fell just behind the far right party,
the Front National, and so was eliminated. Therefore, this year, the
Socialists are emphasizing the importance of the "vote utile" (the
"useful vote") so that this doesn't happen again. The trauma of 2000 for
the Democrats in the United States is matched by the trauma of 2002 for
the Socialists in France.
Where does this leave us? In the United States, the eventual Republican
candidate will present himself as "very" conservative thanks to the
pressures of the Tea Party, and thereby risks losing the votes of
so-called moderates, who are more "centrist." The Democratic candidate,
who will be President Obama, has disillusioned many of his more ardent
supporters by moving strikingly to the right during his first term. He
is now trying to win them back by a more "populist" platform, but
worries that, in the process, he may lose some of those "disillusioned"
Republican moderates. In 2012, there are no significant minor party
candidates in view.
In France, the situation is more complicated. The present polls show
that the two major party candidates - Nicolas Sarkozy for the
right-center party, the UMP, and François Hollande for the left-center
party, the Socialists - are running almost even on the first round.
However, each has only somewhat fewer than 30% of the vote. The
remaining 40-50% are expected to split their votes primarily among three
other candidates: Martine LePen for the far right Front National,
François Bayrou for a centrist-centrist party (condemning both the UMP
and the Socialists for being insufficiently centrist), and Jean-Paul
Melenchon for the Left Front who has managed to rally around him most of
the radical left votes despite the participation of a number of other
far left parties on the ballot.
LePen, Bayrou, and Melenchon are each polling between 14-18% of the
votes at the moment. Hence none of them seems likely to get into the
second round. Melenchon's showing has been the great surprise of the
election. But it is also predicted that, if the polls show Hollande
going down by too much, perhaps half of his present supporters will vote
Hollande rather than Melenchon in order not to risk that either LePen or
Bayrou edge Hollande out.
However, if Melenchon gets a large vote and Hollande is nonetheless in
the second round, two things will be true. One, there will have been a
clear message to the Socialists that politically they must move left.
And secondly, most Melenchon voters will vote for Hollande on the second
round. On the right, however, most LePen voters will be reluctant to
vote Sarkozy, and the Front National will not recommend this. Were they
to do so, they would undermine the very basis for their existence.
The French system seems to work better for the radical left. The U.S.
system seems to work better for the far right. But this is primarily
because of different electoral rules.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Debate-list