|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 16:52:41 GMT
So, here are the 90 seconds of our current leader. He has managed to tame most of his face in recent years, but his eyebrows still know no master. Much more consensual message than his speeches.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 13, 2012 18:55:24 GMT
A clever anti-National Front video
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Apr 15, 2012 7:38:40 GMT
I find that curious, but each to their own.
What we do in the UK is to close the polls at the same time everywhere, and then all the voting boxes for each constituency are gathered together before verifying and counting. Results aren't reported at any level lower than the relevant constituency (though it is possible for experienced party observers to get an impression of how well or badly they're doing in each box's contents as the papers are verified and sorted before final counting). The media and polling organisations do "exit polls" as people leave the polling stations, and these are usually fairly accurate, but I think there may be some ban on reporting these during polling day before the polls close.
If anyone asks, yes, we still do it the old-fashioned way with pencils and paper and manual checking and counting: there have been experiments with electronic voting and online, but I think there are too many problems that way about maintaining an audit trail that people can really trust. You can get a postal or proxy vote without many formalities now (once upon a time you had to prove you were practically at death's door to get one), and again, there are too many cases of abuse of the system turning up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 10:46:48 GMT
They are talking about changing the rules to close all polling stations at the same time, but the problem is that it is a given that big cities must remain open until 8pm. It seems a bit unfair to force villages of 50 people to do the same.
Early voters are asked if they accept to return at closing time to count ballots. I have done it a few times and have now decided that I have done it enough.
In Paris, they set up 4 tables of 4 "common citizen" people. One person is supposed to open the envelope and remove the ballot paper. The ballot is handed to the second person who reads the name on it. The two other people have big counting sheets to mark. The voting office officials give each table a package of 100 ballots to count. In a Paris station, generally each table ends up with 200 ballots to count for sure, and the fastest table(s) might get another pack of 100 to do.
Naturally, the officials explain which ballots are to be counted as valid or void. Empty envelopes and void ballots are counted in the general total, and the percentage is given in the general results, but that is not factored into the percentage results of the candidates (i.e. if candidate A gets 50 votes and candidate B gets 50 votes and there are also 100 void ballots, the result is still candidate A 50% and candidate B 50% although they really only got 25% of the votes).
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 15, 2012 10:55:22 GMT
That is one of the things that bother me the most -- spoiling your ballot or voting blank should be counted as a vote for "none of the above". Instead, the votes are not counted -- I guess they don't want to encourage people to express their opinion of the available candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 11:13:12 GMT
Well, in the second round of the elections in 2002, when voters had to choose between Chirac and Le Pen -- a time when there was an emminently valid reason to invalidate one's ballot -- the total of "void and blank" ballots was only 5.39% (compared to 3.38% in the first round), while abstentions plummeted as well.
This would seem to indicate that people do want to choose somebody if they have to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 11:22:48 GMT
Time to take a look at the 90 seconds of the current front runner, François Hollande. Besides the fact that he seems to have taken a cocktail of steroids and ecstasy, this is I think the only clip that it not subtitles (but who could read that fast anyway? ) In François Holland's defense, the reason that he acts like this now is because his adversaries kept saying that he looked about as dynamic as a crème caramel. They probably wish they had shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Apr 15, 2012 17:12:23 GMT
I found from watching two of these videos, Sarkozy's demeanor confident and stable where Francois Holland seemed desperate and erratic.
The process is very interesting.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 17:39:29 GMT
To a certain extent, that is the way it is supposed to be. Sarkozy's role is to insist that he has done well and that everything is going fine, whereas Hollande's role is to insist that France is going to hell in a handbasket.
It's the same with the American election -- Obama has to appear as serene as possible and his adversary has to insist that the U.S. is in a horrible crisis.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Apr 15, 2012 19:23:51 GMT
Excellent comparison Kerouac.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Apr 16, 2012 14:51:26 GMT
Interesting that Hollande appeals so much to historical precedent. The rhetorical style is Third Republic, almost, and the appeal - in effect - to continuity is as much conservative as radical (deliberately, no doubt).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 20:30:15 GMT
One of the most interesting things about French politics is that that the traiditional right wing -- Sarkozy's UMP party -- is always claiming to having revolutionary (capitalistic and dynamic) ideas for the future of France while the Socialists are "paralyzed in conservatism." For the conservative UMP, "conservative" is a bad word and "change" is a good word. I'm not sure what American conservatives would think of this.
The Socialists are indeed "conservatives" in certain ways, because they want to conserve what they consider to be the social advances of the last 70 years rather than cancelling them. Of course, they are also in favour of certain changes, such as more power to the people and same sex marriage and adoption. We'll see what happens in the next six days.
In the meantime, a more lighthearted candidate, Philippe Poutou of the New Anticapitalist Party.
The official clip tries to be mostly serious.
But some of the alternative ones (also validated by the party) are on the verge of hilarious. This one parodies a famous game show.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Apr 17, 2012 3:19:11 GMT
I like that Poutou spot OK. He seems more natural than Hollande, I'd probably vote for him. I no longer let the candidate I vote for's electability even impinge on my electoral decision making. From here on out I'm voting for the candidates I agree with- even if nobody else will!
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Apr 17, 2012 15:12:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 17:01:43 GMT
Today's major source of amusement is this little video showing Sarkozy shaking hands after his last rally at Place de la Concorde. In the middle of handshaking, he suddenly takes off his 55,000€ Rolex and slips it in his pocket.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Apr 17, 2012 18:40:10 GMT
I agree with Fumo about Poutou. He appears to be direct about his politics and what he believes in no matter where he is. Sarkozy removing his watch indicates to me that he portrays a different persona from neighborhood to neighborhood.
I find the videos informative and entertaining. I also appreciate that they have the words written below as I read french better than I do hearing it.
Do the candidates travel the country or concentrate on Paris when campaigning?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 19:04:07 GMT
They hop around all over the place, including Réunion and the West Indies. Here is a wordless Philippe Poutou spectacular. World revolution is at hand! We should also look at Mr-Middle-of-the-Road, the centrist François Bayrou. He will be getting about 10% of the vote. Everything he says tries to be as consensual as possible, with never a daring idea.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Apr 17, 2012 19:14:02 GMT
And did you - or he - spot just whose hand was just then reaching out for his? That surely can't have been why he did it...... could it?
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Apr 17, 2012 20:22:47 GMT
Yes, Bayrou appears to be safe to those people who do not want to risk radical changes in these times of austerity.
Gosh Patrick, I watched the Sarkozy clip again and I hope his reaction was not to be attributed to the people he was engaging. I did not view this as you did until you mentioned it. It does make me now wonder how many people viewed it this way?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 20:25:18 GMT
Now I'm wondering how easy it is to slip a Rolex off someone's wrist. He certainly did it to his own wrist easily enough.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 5:12:00 GMT
Today is the last day of the campaign for round one. No more speeches or rallies or campaign clips as of midnight Friday. People vote on Sunday and the whole thing starts over again for two weeks with the top two candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Breeze on Apr 20, 2012 23:18:36 GMT
My powers of prediction are negative--what I expect rarely comes true. It's unusual for me (us) to vote for a winner in an election. We never expected Obama to win, given that we live in the part of Pennsylvania known as Alabama and every yard sign was for his opponents. We expected Segolene Royale to win last time, and the French people we met at that time were expecting Hillary Clinton to be the next US president. So much for predictions. With that in mind, here's the Guardian's take on a bellwether village in France: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/burgundy-village-mirrors-french-election-news-bad-sarkozyAs goes Donzy, so goes la nation? I'll check in on Donzy on Monday to see if it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 15:57:49 GMT
Breeze, I have almost never voted for winners either. In the first round, I have almost always voted for losers -- except perhaps in 1988 when I really wanted Mitterrand to be re-elected. Since then, I have always voted for losers. Tomorrow, I might vote for the winner, but I have not fully decided to do so yet. I plan to vote around the end of the day, so what will influence me will be the participation percentages. Meanwhile, even though we have not yet voted for president, the legislative campaigns have begun (elections in June). In my own district, the communists are proposing this gay rights activist and his African origin alternate. This person will not win, because the current Socialist MP is running again, and he generally gets about 65% of the vote in my extremely leftist district. I admit that I will vote for the Socialist Daniel Vaillant not only because I think he has done a good job for all of the constituents, but because he very personally intervened to get my mother into the local nursing home. The district just to the south of mine is even more anchored at left than my own. The MP Tony Dreyfus is retiring, so his replacement is practically assured of being elected, and she will certainly add a bit of extra "colour" to the parliament, which definitely needs a bit more diversity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 16:24:14 GMT
I should mention that presidential voting has begun in North and South America today -- not only in the French "possessions" of St. Pierre & Miquelon, and the overseas departments of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyane, but also in the various countries of those continents.
2.2 million French citizens live abroad, 1.15 million of whom are registered to vote in the various consulates and embassies. Montréal has the largest number of French voters in North America: 44,000.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 13:21:41 GMT
I've been trying to follow this. I too,have always been intrigued with the electoral process and France has never disappointed me for whatever reason. I did not know how the ballot process worked there,fascinating.
What is the deal with French politicians and journalists? Is it a prerequisite that they end up being bedfellows? It seems so, so prevalent. We saw it here in the US with Schwarzenager and Maria Shriver,and,I'm trying to think if it's as common here as it seems to be there. Is it that the politicians and journalists spend so much time together that they inevitably end up in bed together like fashion models and photographers? So curious a phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 15:06:38 GMT
It is indeed a French speciality, going back at least 30 years now. However, it always seems to be women journalists with male political figures and never men journalists with female politicians. The person on the grill at the moment is Audrey Pulvar, who is both on the radio and television and whose companion is Arnaud Montebourg, who will certainly be a government minister in the event that François Hollande wins. The fact that François Hollande is also with a journalist is less of an issue, because Valérie Trierweiler is not considered to be a heavyweight journalist, working for Paris Match. It is interesting to note that François Hollande has not felt compelled to get married, as Lionel Jospin did shortly before the election in 2002 (Jospin was supposed to be the shoo-in over Chirac but got eliminated by Le Pen over a tiny percentage difference in the first round). It appears that the "advanced" European countries are now ready to say "fuck protocol" regarding more conservative countries, since the "spouse" is after all of little importance in international gatherings -- I presume this is why Belgium did not worry about naming Elio di Rupo as prime minister, even though he is discreetly but openly gay. I just hope that other countries that are a little too obsessed with private lives would learn something from these examples -- what you do in your private life should not be an element of judgement of your political action.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 16:56:09 GMT
Okay, so I went to vote this afternoon after leaving the nursing home. I was assigned to a new polling station this year, at the Collège Aimé Césaire (middle school), a couple of blocks from my place. It was a railway freight office, but it has been converted into a really nice looking school. Here is the room that was used for voting. There were two different "voting offices" with computer listings of the registered voters. You show your voting card and are given a blue envelope. Then you pick up at least two ballots from the table -- or all ten if you are super conscientious -- and go fill your envelope in a booth behind the curtain. I picked up four ballots, all of which were in line with my political leanings, so even if I made a mistake, it wouldn't be a mistake. At the ballot box, you give both your identity card and your voting card and they find your name on the list. You put your ballot in the transparent plastic urn and then you sign the list. Your card is stamped with the date and then you are free to leave. The internet has already revealed the results, but I won't mention them for at least another hour when the last polling stations close. Abstention is apparently below 20%, which is always good news. The real election is in two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 22, 2012 17:07:39 GMT
Our blue envelopes were on the table along with the little ballot papers. We didn't have to show anything to get one. Our voting place was in a school too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 17:14:02 GMT
Small towns have very relaxed rules for the elections. I presume that cities have to prevent commando operations where somebody would come and take all of the envelopes or ballots unexpectedly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 20:28:25 GMT
Anyway, as expected, we are now down to our two candidates for two weeks from now: Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande.
The campaign starts again tomorrow for 12 days.
|
|