[Debate] (Fwd) Elections in France and the US: rules matter (Immanuel Wallerstein)

[Patrick Bond]

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 
ferociously.

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 
electoral systems.

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...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120401/d60974a2/attachment.htm