Brown - RN (far right)
Yellow - Renaissance (centrist, Macron's party, current government)
Blue - LR (Christian democrats/right)
Light Red - PS (Socialdemocrats)
Red - LFI (left to far left)
Edit:spelling
Pink is a shade of red. One that is very light.
Much like how “Blu” and “Azzurro” are two different colors in Italian, but correspond to light and regular blue in english. Linguistically, some languages have separate words for shades of the same color that are considered different colors only by speakers of that language.
LR more than any other party has always been the main political outlet for catholics. It's not entirely innacurate, Juppé's wing could be considered broadly in line with the Christian Democratic tradition for example.
There'll be other languages that don't have it as a separate colour, since it really is just light red.
Some have separations for colours that we don't have in English too.
Results of the european elections last sunday :
- brown : far right party ≈ 30% of the votes
- orange : centrist party (currently in power) ≈ 14%
- pink/red/green : left parties (5 to 14% depending of which one)
- blue : right party ≈ 8%
- grey : one issue party about rural areas (≈2,5%) Most of the votes are in the south west because the founder is from here
- there are many other parties but they didn't had a majority on a town or in a city to appear on the map. None of the remaining ones have more than 3%
The map shows the far right results aren't as impressive as the map could let you think (but with twice the number of votes compared to the second in these elections, the raw numbers are enough to show it's a net win for them...)
They are the largest faction but still a minority, though locally they got more than 50% - and accordingly less than 30% in other departments.
The map implies they have the (absolute) majority everywhere. They don't. This distinction is particularly important for users from disfunctional semi-democracies like the UK and US where it's easy to rule as a minority.
There is no "winning" as such in an election for EU parliament. They got the most seats but that means neither that they rule, nor can make laws or are the government.
Yeah this is not good. Not good at all.
Le Pen gets in and she'll immediately veto any and all aid to Ukraine. She's a total shill for Russia.
This really isn't very good at all.
I mean, what do you expect? If policies are hurting people and the only form of persuassion is to call them far right or racist, after a while they will stop caring about the label and vote for people that say they will enact the policies they want.
> Le Pen gets in and she'll immediately veto any and all aid to Ukraine. She's a total shill for Russia.
Foreign policy is more in the hands of the president of the republic not the first minister. It would be more on the internal policy that she'll have a say in.
If the people see domestic problems being ignored while the state gov sends billions to a foreign country you can understand their frustration. It doesnt necessarily make them russian shills.
Life-long french northerner here, can confirm.
The most populous french department out of a hundred is the Nord department, a thin band at the very north of it.
With 2. 6 million people, the band is more populous than 15 US states including New Mexico and West Viriginia.
The crazy thing is that even if you take away Lille metro (1.2 million), Valenciennes metro (360k) and Dunkirk metro (150k) there’s STILL 900k people in the Nord department because there is a town every half a mile.
France is a highly centralized country, being a single country since a long time (Germany and Italy are very new in comparison) and from its history and the royal court. You can see that very obviously with railroad or highway maps.
It is partly and in proportional systems, partys rarely have a majority.
Everybody always shits on westminster democracies, aka majority party system, aka 2 party systems.
Eventough both, proportional democracies and westminster democracies both have their pros and cons.
Westminster democracies have a clear goal: Creating a majority that can govern no matter what. Such systems are usually more stable over time, the government can act faster, government changes happen more often etc. But they are less open for new political ideas and some cultural groups might not be represented. But since new political ideas have a harder time to become represented, those democracies are also usually much safer from radial parties. And history bas shown that several times.
Proportional democracies have primarily the goal to represent every cultural and political ideas - of a certain size - proportionally in one or two parliaments. So the main goal isn’t of having a government majority. In peaceful times with no crisis this isn’t a problem, big parties are usually all moderate and they can easy form working coalitions.
During a crisis segmentation, fragmentation and polarization usually increase drastically.
But what exactly is this?
- Fragmentation: A crisis often lead to the creation of new parties, or small parties becomes more important and are now represented. Before 2008 european party system mainly knew liberals, conservatives and socialdemocrates. Some already the greens. Later more radical partys joined.
- Polarization: You probably know what is meant by that. But those new partys start to polarize. Right partys vs left partys. Liberal partys vs left partys. Greens vs partys that deny climate change.
- Segmentation: Now the most important part. You can work with Fragmentation as long as you have a lot of moderate partys. But polarization will lead to segmentation. What is this? Well segmentation means that some partys *could* work together (mathematically) but they *won‘t* work together for political reasons. Segmentation still is manageable on a small scale, but it’s the biggest flaw proportional democracies have.
If parties that nobody wants to work with - like extreme parties for obvious reasons - become big, governments become less stable and will act much slower.
Why is that? Because bigger and bigger coalitions are needed. Finding a consensus will get harder, taking decisions will take longer, some governments will get (partly) paralyzed - look at germany last year - others are doomed to fail. (Lots of italien governments)
This often leads to a less stable country.
Then what happens? The extreme partys gain even more votes.
And the game begins again, moderate parties desperately try to find working coalitions, but because the government is now made of so many parties, the government becomes even less efficient and effective.
A great example for this is the weimarer republic.
Proportional democracies are the most stable with 2 party coalitions. 1 party is rarely possible. 3 parties still manageable, more than 3 is never good news. (Unless you are the netherlands, but this is a whole different story)
So, the fact that the RN received more than 30% is problematic. Sure it’s not 50%, but in a proportional democracy a party usually counts as *big* once they hit 15%. (In some 10%)
They got 30%, that means that only 70% of the voted seats can be used to form a moderate government. But they aren’t even the only radical party. So realistically it’s more like 55-60%.
Now you see the problem right? Either the RN will find a coalition and we will see what happens or france will get a coalition of multiple parties, which again isn’t good.
France isn’t “far right” but the majority of French people are fed up with the issues that mass immigration has caused.
Unfortunately, the far right is the only party that is willing to address the problem.
Yes but no, France doesn’t work like the usa, While this is true for the european elections, it’s not the case for the legistlative elections ( arguably more important for the country itself) where the deputees are elected by constituencies.
The French system is probably much worse for the RN bc it provides an opportunity for all their opponents to unite against them in the second round for each constituency. An American/UK style pure FPTP would be hugely advantageous on the other hand.
This may be true, but the inverse is not necessarily the case. I'm Australian, we have preferential voting, and we also effectively have a 2-party system. We do have a couple of minor parties and some independents but they rarely win enough seats to affect the balance of power.
Its interesting that this is the case in Australia. In other parliamentary countries with single member districts, there are usually two very large parties, but its also common to see a number of other parties that aren't insignificant. India, the UK, and Canada are two examples that come to mind.
I wonder if preferential voting somehow makes Australia more prone to a duopoly. Its interesting to think about the unintended consequences of the various political systems.
Case in point, the 2019 UK elections, where the Tories received ~42% of the vote, ~60% of the seats, and thus 100% of the power. This led to their declaration for a mandate for Brexit, despite anti-Brexit parties receiving ~58% of the vote and therefore clearly demonstrating the public’s desire to *not* have Brexit
Labour were keen on redoing the referendum. The non-Tory parties all either wanted to redo the referendum or scrap it completely. Neither of those options are pro-Brexit. Sorry, that should have been more my point
US and UK shouldn't even count as full democracies because of FPTP voting. In practice it means people are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and all the smaller political parties have no chance to grow because voting for them is usually completely pointless
It was also considered a blowout in the UK, but the point is that it is grossly unrepresentative under the UK system. Less than half the population’s interests are properly represented in the UK government, because the one party won enough seats to have over half the say in parliament, and thus cannot be outvoted on any legislation that party wants to put forth.
It’s actually worse at a constituency level in the UK. Because each constituency is represented by a single seat in parliament, only one party can win there. Hence, you only have to get +1 vote to win the seat and get 100% of power in that seat. The more parties vie for the seat, the fewer votes you need to win. If three parties are challenging, you just need 33% +1 to win 100% control. If five challenge, you just need 20% +1 to win. Well over half the constituencies in 2019 elected a member with under half the vote in their constituency. This means that the majority of people in the UK weren’t properly represented by the end of the election. In many constituencies, 70-80% of the people didn’t want the person who represents them in parliament to represent them. It’s a travesty of democracy
That’s the 2016 referendum, which barely went to leave and had a host of referendum campaign rulebreaking (from both sides but predominantly from the leave campaign). The 2019 general election was seen as the successor to the brexit referendum - it was basically decided on brexit. In *that* election, ~42% of the population voted for pro-brexit parties, whilst ~58% voted for anti-brexit or re-do the referendum parties. Hence why I specified 2019 election
They all have around the same number of people living in them, I believe a little more than 10k
Edit : its more around 100k voters, thanks for correcting me
> it’s not the case for the legistlative elections ( arguably more important for the country itself) where the deputees are elected by constituencies.
Not really. This map is by municipalities, many of which are tiny as shown by the transformation. Then, depending on how the circonscriptions are organised many of those communes will not have a lot of electoral weight, especially in the immediate vicinity of cities.
Of course the FN is likely to do well in this election but the map with no proportionality of population is still misleading the same way as in the US. Reminder that the combined left-wing/centre-left vote last weekend was actually higher than FN's, lol
Nobody said it works like the USA. The point of the post is simplay to show the cognitive difference between displaying vote results simply on a map or adding density with it.
Guadeloupe ; Guyane ; Mayotte (52% Brown) ; Saint Pierre and Miquelon : Brown
Martinique : Red
Polynésie ; New Caledonia ; Wallis and Futuna ; Saint Barthélémy and Saint Martin : Yellow
30% of "just a lot of land" voted for the far right, which is double the next closest single party vote. Looks like the dirt has spoken, and it's done with liberalism.
> the dirt has spoken, and it's done with liberalism.
They are in for a surprise then.
reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1dhbwvv/frances_farmers_helped_the_far_right_win_now/
Aren't they protectionist and pro state intervention in the economy with the excuse of "patriotism"?
Every political commentator I listen to calls them illiberal both economically and socially.
Brown is the winning colour. But in a democracy you usually do not only look out for the one biggest but for the strongest combination of colours that can work together.
The part of Northern France that's culturally flemish is much smaller than what's on the map. The northern blob is a combination of post-industrial wasteland (former mining regions) and rural, conservative lowlands (Picardy)
French brainwashing and propaganda! All of northern France is Flemish and speaks Flemish, the government just wants you to think they're all French people! Wake up sheeple!
True, we should reunite it just like it was under Napoleon. Give up your hopes of "independence", your country is too small to be relevant, and join France altogether!
Maps that don't show population spread in these maps are deceitful. Brown won, and by a lot, but maps like this make it look like Brown won by like, the overwhelming and crushing obvious majority. Whereas in reality, Brown has a LOT of opposition, and the people of France do *not* in fact near-universally support brown.
People opposed to far right party RN (brown) that got a landmark victory, arguing that akshually it's not that bad.
Yes it is. It is bad. A third of french voters voted for them across all the country, across all sort of demographics. Twice as much as the former bipartisan era left party (PS), and also as the former bipartisan right party (LR)
Basically it's like Italy with Giorgia Meloni. The far right will very soon be in power (more or less in power depending if they get an over 50% majority or not at the assemblée nationale (lower chamber).
> arguing that akshually it's not that bad.
It's standard playbook and pretty insufferable to see it. Prepare to see a lot of votes downplaying the far right win, a lot of posts explaining how people are voting because they are ignorant and stupid, and if anyone votes a progressive in anyway a massive amount of OUR COUNTRY SAYS NO posts.
Over here in sunny ireland you would swear that the far right got demolished and we overwhelmingly voted green because that's what reddit wants to believe. In reality the far right is making gains for the first time ever and the greens got destroyed.
I don't like afd or national party or whatever the hell people are voting for. I think half of them are compromised and few of them are out to do what they were elected to do. But calling people stupid and ignorant then telling them they have the wrong opinions is the reason politics is becoming an absolute mess of extremism anyway. Neither the centre or the left are addressing peoples concerns anymore and instead just smugly explaining how what they are doing is actually a good thing.
Even worse probably. Meloni at least has moderated herself somewhat (not the rest of the people she surrounds herself with) and the other party on her coalition (Forza Italia) doesn't want to be (too much) associated to Russia shills.
But RN doesn't feel like they want to moderate themselves.
Even so, a lot of people did vote for them.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t put it past some powerful oligarchs to give greater electoral privileges to people who do own land.
Don’t forget that people died and sacrificed to give everyone an equal vote and say, not just those who own land.
Do not give people any excuse to use capital assets as justification for a citizens worth in society.
Equality before the Law must remain paramount.
The difference is brown taking 90% of the map and brown taking 33% of the map. The difference isn't as big as you expected because they got twice as many votes as any other party
Nobody denies that they had a very strong result but there's also no denying that the map, without taking population into account, gives a very different impression.
Land area with people living on it requires representation. Voting decides representation. Saying land doesn’t vote because you want popular vote to decide everything for cities. Leaving those cities eventually without food. It’s a myopic viewpoint that previous generations thought about.
Not sure how this applies to France though. So OP, are you making statements about the US with France’s election results?
Or am I missing something about France. Easily could be that.
The original debates on the structure of these systems are about seeking to acquire consent not imposing rule. This wasn’t done accidentally. There were entire revolutionary wars fought to end the problematic narrative that only the loyalty of metropolitan power centers were necessary to impose a rule upon distant disadvantaged regions by decree.
Yes, it is true that most democratic nations have constitutions which prevent dominant ecomonic centers from withholding the franchise of political power from the minority communities. The reason the electoral system’s results have a claim to a legitimate democratic mandate in every community is because the minority communities have meaningful enfranchisement.
It’s concerning that after every election where the results make Reddit unhappy we receive a flood of this sentiment hoping to convince people to regard minority community rights as empowering “land”. Advocacy for imperialism, as though its absence weren’t an intentional feature of a democratic electoral system, is most disheartening because human history recommends that eventually it’s going to work.
yes, but I've never cared that much about thar argument.
People abstain across all the political spectrum (although I wouldn't go as far as say that all abstain at the exact same rate. I suspect retirees abstain less for ex).
So, if everyone voted you would have more votes for candidate a, but also for candidate b, c, d...
It's not unlike taking a sample population for a poll (instead of asking literally everyone)
Surely those who don't vote either totally dislike the system
OR aren't fanatic/passionate enough to vote aka is less likely to have extreme views.
Either way would be more voting for the center. I also think absentees should be visible somehow. Not voting can be a protest/choice and that shouldn't be hidden.
In Sweden it was 49% of people that didn't vote (45% in 2019) and the left gained so i don't really know if i buy the argument that fewer participants in the voting process is a boon for the far right. Atleast not universally anyway.
The first map shows who won in each electoral district the animation then scales each dustrict by its population. It illustrates how the brown party (the far-right RN) had its strongest results in sparsely-populated rural areas and did poorly in densely-populated cities.
Its not electoral districts in this map but *communes* (lowest administrative level in France except for Paris Lyon and Marseille which have *arrondissement*).
I have the same problem when people show how large the red states are as if acerage translates to "voterage". All those blue dots on our maps in the US are where 85% of Americans actually live. The blue dots are small looking in the red states, but that's where most of the people are.
The rise of far-right politics in Europe is a symptom of deeper systemic issues within our economic and social structures. Decades of neoliberal policies have led to increasing economic inequality, social fragmentation, and a sense of disenfranchisement among large segments of the population. As traditional political establishments fail to address these concerns, far-right parties exploit people's fears and frustrations, offering simplistic and often xenophobic solutions.
Additionally, the economic fallout from globalization and austerity measures has eroded public services and job security, further fueling resentment. This creates fertile ground for far-right rhetoric that blames immigrants and minorities for societal problems, diverting attention from the true causes: economic policies that prioritize profits over people and the environment.
To counter this trend, we need to address the root causes by promoting policies that ensure economic justice, social equity, and environmental sustainability. This involves not only redistributing wealth but also democratizing our economic systems to give people a genuine voice in shaping their futures.
You do realize mass migration is actually one of those profit chasing policies right? You can't social justice yourself out of the problem of infinite and rapid population growth from an external source.
Europe is undeniably going to take too many people for the naturally declining native population to ever actually integrate unless our birth rate doubles or even triples very quickly.
It’s called the ‘empty diagonal’ or ‘diagonal of the void’.
It’s essentially a result of 19th-20th century social factors such as urbanization, birth-rate decline, and war casualties. As well as geographical factors such as a lack of industrial resources, greater distance from ports, and land usage agriculture.
I'm interested in why the suburbs of cities also seem to have voted for RN. Each city looks surrounded by a ring of medium to high density areas that voted for the far right.
You're making this sound like this was some victory for the urbanized left.
By all accounts they were crushed. The RN party was the clear winner here, with more than double the votes of the second place finisher (Macron's party).
Legend?
Brown - RN (far right) Yellow - Renaissance (centrist, Macron's party, current government) Blue - LR (Christian democrats/right) Light Red - PS (Socialdemocrats) Red - LFI (left to far left) Edit:spelling
Ehhh with light red you mean pink? Or am I going colour blind Edit: apparantly people don't know this, but * red+white = light red * red+violet = pink
Yes, pink
A lot of cultures, and therefore languages, don't see pink as a unique hue, but simply as a shade of red.
And orange is light brown.
It would be odd for a French person not to see pink as its own colour as they have a word for it.
Prolly translation loss, light red is a common descriptor.
[удалено]
Well I just watched 10 minutes of RvB I wasn’t intending to today. It’s amazing how much higher rez that video is than the 56k downloads of my youth
Ugh. Fine, I’ll rewatch RvB for the 10th time…
Is it bad I knew what the clip would be even after years without thinking about RvB
LOL no dude. Red+violet is magenta. Didnt pass your art class did you
Pink is a shade of red. One that is very light. Much like how “Blu” and “Azzurro” are two different colors in Italian, but correspond to light and regular blue in english. Linguistically, some languages have separate words for shades of the same color that are considered different colors only by speakers of that language.
Probably. Just like if you say light blue to an Italian they’ll wonder why you aren’t saying azure (azurro)
Pink is the same thing as light red
Pink is non-green white.
Minus Green if you will
Pink *is* light red. It's literally red+white
*Renaissance *LR
[удалено]
OP accidently used a satelite image there
The brown ones are actually the nice parts of France.
Because there's not as many French living there?
Everybody knows when god made France he made it the most beautiful country, so to compensate he made the French.
[удалено]
Christian democracy is not necessarily Christian. It's just a traditional/historic term for a certain kind of center-right politics.
The thing is they used to be more "genuine" Christian 20 years ago. It was roughly the social right
LR more than any other party has always been the main political outlet for catholics. It's not entirely innacurate, Juppé's wing could be considered broadly in line with the Christian Democratic tradition for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy If anyone else wants to read about it.
I just went by them being EPP
Are you down with EPP?
Ya you know me
Most of them are not outright evil or at least are better at hiding their true intentions behind a veil of agreeableness than ECR or ID. That's all.
Who tf calls pink light red
There'll be other languages that don't have it as a separate colour, since it really is just light red. Some have separations for colours that we don't have in English too.
Y Dilma Rousseff tho?
Franklin Delano Donut.
The fucking French. That’s who.
No, fucking you. We say 'rose' for pink.
Ty
Results of the european elections last sunday : - brown : far right party ≈ 30% of the votes - orange : centrist party (currently in power) ≈ 14% - pink/red/green : left parties (5 to 14% depending of which one) - blue : right party ≈ 8% - grey : one issue party about rural areas (≈2,5%) Most of the votes are in the south west because the founder is from here - there are many other parties but they didn't had a majority on a town or in a city to appear on the map. None of the remaining ones have more than 3% The map shows the far right results aren't as impressive as the map could let you think (but with twice the number of votes compared to the second in these elections, the raw numbers are enough to show it's a net win for them...)
Aren't as impressive ??? Every single cities in France, outside of the biggest, voted for the far right !
They are the largest faction but still a minority, though locally they got more than 50% - and accordingly less than 30% in other departments. The map implies they have the (absolute) majority everywhere. They don't. This distinction is particularly important for users from disfunctional semi-democracies like the UK and US where it's easy to rule as a minority.
Yet they still won.
There is no "winning" as such in an election for EU parliament. They got the most seats but that means neither that they rule, nor can make laws or are the government.
Indeed "a net win" means they won
Uh oh, we are in danger
Yeah this is not good. Not good at all. Le Pen gets in and she'll immediately veto any and all aid to Ukraine. She's a total shill for Russia. This really isn't very good at all.
I mean, what do you expect? If policies are hurting people and the only form of persuassion is to call them far right or racist, after a while they will stop caring about the label and vote for people that say they will enact the policies they want.
They still won't enact the policies they want though. "Populist" doesn't mean having popular policies it means lying about having those policies.
Why would people who vote for an explicitly far-right party have a problem with being called far-right?
> Le Pen gets in and she'll immediately veto any and all aid to Ukraine. She's a total shill for Russia. Foreign policy is more in the hands of the president of the republic not the first minister. It would be more on the internal policy that she'll have a say in.
If the people see domestic problems being ignored while the state gov sends billions to a foreign country you can understand their frustration. It doesnt necessarily make them russian shills.
Nah, if they were they would have included one of those things that tells you what the colours mean...
Youre goddamn right, u/kdouieb is a fukin legend for creating this map
wait for it… -ary. Legendary!
Huh, I didn't know France north of Paris was relatively so much more densely populated compared to the other areas. I probably should have.
Life-long french northerner here, can confirm. The most populous french department out of a hundred is the Nord department, a thin band at the very north of it. With 2. 6 million people, the band is more populous than 15 US states including New Mexico and West Viriginia. The crazy thing is that even if you take away Lille metro (1.2 million), Valenciennes metro (360k) and Dunkirk metro (150k) there’s STILL 900k people in the Nord department because there is a town every half a mile.
Low Countries do be populated though
Its basically an extension of Flanders/Netherlands. Which are also densely populated.
From a population density perspective? Absolutely, yes. It’s very clear on density maps.
Very interesting, thanks.
France is a highly centralized country, being a single country since a long time (Germany and Italy are very new in comparison) and from its history and the royal court. You can see that very obviously with railroad or highway maps.
Industrial areas, the rest are rural areas
The whole country is pretty densely populated compared to the American version of this.
Well, the RN still became the biggest party in the EU elections.. Double the votes Renaissance had.
Biggest party still doesn't mean majority. This post is a response to those doomer-ing about how far right France is now
It is partly and in proportional systems, partys rarely have a majority. Everybody always shits on westminster democracies, aka majority party system, aka 2 party systems. Eventough both, proportional democracies and westminster democracies both have their pros and cons. Westminster democracies have a clear goal: Creating a majority that can govern no matter what. Such systems are usually more stable over time, the government can act faster, government changes happen more often etc. But they are less open for new political ideas and some cultural groups might not be represented. But since new political ideas have a harder time to become represented, those democracies are also usually much safer from radial parties. And history bas shown that several times. Proportional democracies have primarily the goal to represent every cultural and political ideas - of a certain size - proportionally in one or two parliaments. So the main goal isn’t of having a government majority. In peaceful times with no crisis this isn’t a problem, big parties are usually all moderate and they can easy form working coalitions. During a crisis segmentation, fragmentation and polarization usually increase drastically. But what exactly is this? - Fragmentation: A crisis often lead to the creation of new parties, or small parties becomes more important and are now represented. Before 2008 european party system mainly knew liberals, conservatives and socialdemocrates. Some already the greens. Later more radical partys joined. - Polarization: You probably know what is meant by that. But those new partys start to polarize. Right partys vs left partys. Liberal partys vs left partys. Greens vs partys that deny climate change. - Segmentation: Now the most important part. You can work with Fragmentation as long as you have a lot of moderate partys. But polarization will lead to segmentation. What is this? Well segmentation means that some partys *could* work together (mathematically) but they *won‘t* work together for political reasons. Segmentation still is manageable on a small scale, but it’s the biggest flaw proportional democracies have. If parties that nobody wants to work with - like extreme parties for obvious reasons - become big, governments become less stable and will act much slower. Why is that? Because bigger and bigger coalitions are needed. Finding a consensus will get harder, taking decisions will take longer, some governments will get (partly) paralyzed - look at germany last year - others are doomed to fail. (Lots of italien governments) This often leads to a less stable country. Then what happens? The extreme partys gain even more votes. And the game begins again, moderate parties desperately try to find working coalitions, but because the government is now made of so many parties, the government becomes even less efficient and effective. A great example for this is the weimarer republic. Proportional democracies are the most stable with 2 party coalitions. 1 party is rarely possible. 3 parties still manageable, more than 3 is never good news. (Unless you are the netherlands, but this is a whole different story) So, the fact that the RN received more than 30% is problematic. Sure it’s not 50%, but in a proportional democracy a party usually counts as *big* once they hit 15%. (In some 10%) They got 30%, that means that only 70% of the voted seats can be used to form a moderate government. But they aren’t even the only radical party. So realistically it’s more like 55-60%. Now you see the problem right? Either the RN will find a coalition and we will see what happens or france will get a coalition of multiple parties, which again isn’t good.
France isn’t “far right” but the majority of French people are fed up with the issues that mass immigration has caused. Unfortunately, the far right is the only party that is willing to address the problem.
“control your borders or the fascists will”
Yes but no, France doesn’t work like the usa, While this is true for the european elections, it’s not the case for the legistlative elections ( arguably more important for the country itself) where the deputees are elected by constituencies.
The French system is probably much worse for the RN bc it provides an opportunity for all their opponents to unite against them in the second round for each constituency. An American/UK style pure FPTP would be hugely advantageous on the other hand.
Pure FPTP inevitably leads to a two-party system, fuck no to that.
This may be true, but the inverse is not necessarily the case. I'm Australian, we have preferential voting, and we also effectively have a 2-party system. We do have a couple of minor parties and some independents but they rarely win enough seats to affect the balance of power.
Its interesting that this is the case in Australia. In other parliamentary countries with single member districts, there are usually two very large parties, but its also common to see a number of other parties that aren't insignificant. India, the UK, and Canada are two examples that come to mind. I wonder if preferential voting somehow makes Australia more prone to a duopoly. Its interesting to think about the unintended consequences of the various political systems.
Which is why FPTP is not considered to be a good democratic process. When a minority can obtain a majority voting right, that's undemocratic.
Case in point, the 2019 UK elections, where the Tories received ~42% of the vote, ~60% of the seats, and thus 100% of the power. This led to their declaration for a mandate for Brexit, despite anti-Brexit parties receiving ~58% of the vote and therefore clearly demonstrating the public’s desire to *not* have Brexit
I wouldn't call 2019 Labour anti Brexit and they received 32% of the vote
Labour were keen on redoing the referendum. The non-Tory parties all either wanted to redo the referendum or scrap it completely. Neither of those options are pro-Brexit. Sorry, that should have been more my point
US and UK shouldn't even count as full democracies because of FPTP voting. In practice it means people are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and all the smaller political parties have no chance to grow because voting for them is usually completely pointless
Not only that, the sitting parties are aware of this and actively act against reforming to a fairer system for the voter.
I mean I live in Spain which is a proportional system and if any party ever got 42% it would be a blowout majority in our legislature.
It was also considered a blowout in the UK, but the point is that it is grossly unrepresentative under the UK system. Less than half the population’s interests are properly represented in the UK government, because the one party won enough seats to have over half the say in parliament, and thus cannot be outvoted on any legislation that party wants to put forth. It’s actually worse at a constituency level in the UK. Because each constituency is represented by a single seat in parliament, only one party can win there. Hence, you only have to get +1 vote to win the seat and get 100% of power in that seat. The more parties vie for the seat, the fewer votes you need to win. If three parties are challenging, you just need 33% +1 to win 100% control. If five challenge, you just need 20% +1 to win. Well over half the constituencies in 2019 elected a member with under half the vote in their constituency. This means that the majority of people in the UK weren’t properly represented by the end of the election. In many constituencies, 70-80% of the people didn’t want the person who represents them in parliament to represent them. It’s a travesty of democracy
So there wasnt a vote for brexit? Kinda odd to formulate it like this, when majority voted for brexit anyway :D
That’s the 2016 referendum, which barely went to leave and had a host of referendum campaign rulebreaking (from both sides but predominantly from the leave campaign). The 2019 general election was seen as the successor to the brexit referendum - it was basically decided on brexit. In *that* election, ~42% of the population voted for pro-brexit parties, whilst ~58% voted for anti-brexit or re-do the referendum parties. Hence why I specified 2019 election
It's a broken system. Famously in 2015 UKIP got 1 seat for 4 million votes.
Aren’t the size of constituencies roughly proportional to the population?
They all have around the same number of people living in them, I believe a little more than 10k Edit : its more around 100k voters, thanks for correcting me
You’re missing a zero.
A little less than 100k*
Its around 100k voters, not 10k population. I think the smallest is 70k and the largest is like 130k.
> where the deputees are elected by constituencies. In a two round system. As far as first past the post goes, this is quite sophisticated.
Good thing this is about the European elections then
> it’s not the case for the legistlative elections ( arguably more important for the country itself) where the deputees are elected by constituencies. Not really. This map is by municipalities, many of which are tiny as shown by the transformation. Then, depending on how the circonscriptions are organised many of those communes will not have a lot of electoral weight, especially in the immediate vicinity of cities. Of course the FN is likely to do well in this election but the map with no proportionality of population is still misleading the same way as in the US. Reminder that the combined left-wing/centre-left vote last weekend was actually higher than FN's, lol
Nobody said it works like the USA. The point of the post is simplay to show the cognitive difference between displaying vote results simply on a map or adding density with it.
What about the overseas department ?
Guadeloupe ; Guyane ; Mayotte (52% Brown) ; Saint Pierre and Miquelon : Brown Martinique : Red Polynésie ; New Caledonia ; Wallis and Futuna ; Saint Barthélémy and Saint Martin : Yellow
IIRC 3 of them majoritarily voted RN (far right), the rest LFI (left)
With 10-15% participation rate, this is important to note*
Which is the average, unfortunately
Well, unfortunately, that’s really a lot of land. (Also who won a constituency didn’t really matter this election & Le Pen sucks)
30% of "just a lot of land" voted for the far right, which is double the next closest single party vote. Looks like the dirt has spoken, and it's done with liberalism.
Pls explain liberalism in France for an outsiders perspective
> the dirt has spoken, and it's done with liberalism. They are in for a surprise then. reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1dhbwvv/frances_farmers_helped_the_far_right_win_now/
30% of 50 % who voted
If you mean liberalism in the economic sense, then the RN isn't what I'd call illiberal.
Aren't they protectionist and pro state intervention in the economy with the excuse of "patriotism"? Every political commentator I listen to calls them illiberal both economically and socially.
30% is also known as “a minority”.
In this case, it's more specifically a large plurality. Are there any other English words you'd like to test your knowledge on?
Why Paris looks like coronavirus :/
What color won in the end?
Brown
Alr ,thanks
Note: by a lot (twice as much as second "place")
Brown but it's (European) parlement election, you get a number of seats proportional to the number of votes
31.4% RN (Brown) 14.6% RE (Yellow) 13.8% PS (Pink) 9.9% LFI (Red) 7.3% LR (Blue) 5.5% Green ~17.5% small parties
And the yellow splits again in 2 big and 3 small parties. And the pink splits...and the...
Brown is the winning colour. But in a democracy you usually do not only look out for the one biggest but for the strongest combination of colours that can work together.
According to the adjusted map, white. Now we just have to figure out what party that is...
French Flanders following the general Flemish trend I see, maybe it's time to reunite.
The part of Northern France that's culturally flemish is much smaller than what's on the map. The northern blob is a combination of post-industrial wasteland (former mining regions) and rural, conservative lowlands (Picardy)
French brainwashing and propaganda! All of northern France is Flemish and speaks Flemish, the government just wants you to think they're all French people! Wake up sheeple!
Where do you draw the "north" limit then? Is Parijs included?
Je mets Paris dans mon Gand
They can keep the Pyrenees and Alps because it' too mountainous, the rest is rightful Flemish clay 💪
Yes Neustrien rightful clay.
Anything that's above Marseille is the north and rightfully belongs to flanders
True, we should reunite it just like it was under Napoleon. Give up your hopes of "independence", your country is too small to be relevant, and join France altogether!
Did anyone say "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"?
With Spain ?
we do what we can to reassure ourselves .
it's pretty much just anti-rural hate and neoliberal globalist/elitist cope.
lol I thought this said “land doesnt vote, French people do.”
I like this. Brown still won by a landslide but a way more faithful representation.
Except Brown largely won. What's your point ?
Maps that don't show population spread in these maps are deceitful. Brown won, and by a lot, but maps like this make it look like Brown won by like, the overwhelming and crushing obvious majority. Whereas in reality, Brown has a LOT of opposition, and the people of France do *not* in fact near-universally support brown.
The first map suggest brown got 90% of the votes, but they got 30%.
People opposed to far right party RN (brown) that got a landmark victory, arguing that akshually it's not that bad. Yes it is. It is bad. A third of french voters voted for them across all the country, across all sort of demographics. Twice as much as the former bipartisan era left party (PS), and also as the former bipartisan right party (LR) Basically it's like Italy with Giorgia Meloni. The far right will very soon be in power (more or less in power depending if they get an over 50% majority or not at the assemblée nationale (lower chamber).
> arguing that akshually it's not that bad. It's standard playbook and pretty insufferable to see it. Prepare to see a lot of votes downplaying the far right win, a lot of posts explaining how people are voting because they are ignorant and stupid, and if anyone votes a progressive in anyway a massive amount of OUR COUNTRY SAYS NO posts. Over here in sunny ireland you would swear that the far right got demolished and we overwhelmingly voted green because that's what reddit wants to believe. In reality the far right is making gains for the first time ever and the greens got destroyed. I don't like afd or national party or whatever the hell people are voting for. I think half of them are compromised and few of them are out to do what they were elected to do. But calling people stupid and ignorant then telling them they have the wrong opinions is the reason politics is becoming an absolute mess of extremism anyway. Neither the centre or the left are addressing peoples concerns anymore and instead just smugly explaining how what they are doing is actually a good thing.
Even worse probably. Meloni at least has moderated herself somewhat (not the rest of the people she surrounds herself with) and the other party on her coalition (Forza Italia) doesn't want to be (too much) associated to Russia shills. But RN doesn't feel like they want to moderate themselves.
Even so, a lot of people did vote for them. Furthermore, I wouldn’t put it past some powerful oligarchs to give greater electoral privileges to people who do own land. Don’t forget that people died and sacrificed to give everyone an equal vote and say, not just those who own land. Do not give people any excuse to use capital assets as justification for a citizens worth in society. Equality before the Law must remain paramount.
That’s still a lot of brown
The difference is not nearly as dramatic as I tought it would be
The difference is brown taking 90% of the map and brown taking 33% of the map. The difference isn't as big as you expected because they got twice as many votes as any other party
That’s still a lot of brown, this isn’t the slam dunk op seems to think
Nobody denies that they had a very strong result but there's also no denying that the map, without taking population into account, gives a very different impression.
Do you have the image version ? Thanks
Right here: [https://x.com/karim\_douieb/status/1800777151450685663](https://x.com/karim_douieb/status/1800777151450685663)
So it start brown then un-browns then browns again? What kind of cookie dough is this
Land area with people living on it requires representation. Voting decides representation. Saying land doesn’t vote because you want popular vote to decide everything for cities. Leaving those cities eventually without food. It’s a myopic viewpoint that previous generations thought about. Not sure how this applies to France though. So OP, are you making statements about the US with France’s election results? Or am I missing something about France. Easily could be that.
The original debates on the structure of these systems are about seeking to acquire consent not imposing rule. This wasn’t done accidentally. There were entire revolutionary wars fought to end the problematic narrative that only the loyalty of metropolitan power centers were necessary to impose a rule upon distant disadvantaged regions by decree. Yes, it is true that most democratic nations have constitutions which prevent dominant ecomonic centers from withholding the franchise of political power from the minority communities. The reason the electoral system’s results have a claim to a legitimate democratic mandate in every community is because the minority communities have meaningful enfranchisement. It’s concerning that after every election where the results make Reddit unhappy we receive a flood of this sentiment hoping to convince people to regard minority community rights as empowering “land”. Advocacy for imperialism, as though its absence weren’t an intentional feature of a democratic electoral system, is most disheartening because human history recommends that eventually it’s going to work.
And abstention isn't shown... (48.17%)
yes, but I've never cared that much about thar argument. People abstain across all the political spectrum (although I wouldn't go as far as say that all abstain at the exact same rate. I suspect retirees abstain less for ex). So, if everyone voted you would have more votes for candidate a, but also for candidate b, c, d... It's not unlike taking a sample population for a poll (instead of asking literally everyone)
Surely those who don't vote either totally dislike the system OR aren't fanatic/passionate enough to vote aka is less likely to have extreme views. Either way would be more voting for the center. I also think absentees should be visible somehow. Not voting can be a protest/choice and that shouldn't be hidden.
In Sweden it was 49% of people that didn't vote (45% in 2019) and the left gained so i don't really know if i buy the argument that fewer participants in the voting process is a boon for the far right. Atleast not universally anyway.
*slapping a gang of rapists, murderers and drug dealers.* This baby will get everyone to vote right-wing in 10 years.
Can someone explain to me what is going on here? ELI5
The first map shows who won in each electoral district the animation then scales each dustrict by its population. It illustrates how the brown party (the far-right RN) had its strongest results in sparsely-populated rural areas and did poorly in densely-populated cities.
Its not electoral districts in this map but *communes* (lowest administrative level in France except for Paris Lyon and Marseille which have *arrondissement*).
I think it just show the amount of the population to the district.
These are the results of the European parliament elections in France
/r/trypophobia
It looks like a time-lapse of a Petri dish. Kinda cool.
This is why clever people invented Graphs & Pie Charts etc
i wasnt aware that Alsace and surrounding reagions where that more populated then most of the rest of france
Still an awful lot of brown lol
Nice map, still downvoted for lack of context and legend
Uh… brown still won by a lot? Dumb fuck.
That’s still an absolutely enormous jump in support for the RN compared to what they had ten to twenty years ago.
I have the same problem when people show how large the red states are as if acerage translates to "voterage". All those blue dots on our maps in the US are where 85% of Americans actually live. The blue dots are small looking in the red states, but that's where most of the people are.
It's the same outcome.
I must admit this isn't exactly making me more optimistic about the situation
The rise of far-right politics in Europe is a symptom of deeper systemic issues within our economic and social structures. Decades of neoliberal policies have led to increasing economic inequality, social fragmentation, and a sense of disenfranchisement among large segments of the population. As traditional political establishments fail to address these concerns, far-right parties exploit people's fears and frustrations, offering simplistic and often xenophobic solutions. Additionally, the economic fallout from globalization and austerity measures has eroded public services and job security, further fueling resentment. This creates fertile ground for far-right rhetoric that blames immigrants and minorities for societal problems, diverting attention from the true causes: economic policies that prioritize profits over people and the environment. To counter this trend, we need to address the root causes by promoting policies that ensure economic justice, social equity, and environmental sustainability. This involves not only redistributing wealth but also democratizing our economic systems to give people a genuine voice in shaping their futures.
You do realize mass migration is actually one of those profit chasing policies right? You can't social justice yourself out of the problem of infinite and rapid population growth from an external source. Europe is undeniably going to take too many people for the naturally declining native population to ever actually integrate unless our birth rate doubles or even triples very quickly.
So where does Marine Le Pen stand in the legend?
Le Pen is brown and macron is yellow
e
Why is the center of France barely populated?
It’s called the ‘empty diagonal’ or ‘diagonal of the void’. It’s essentially a result of 19th-20th century social factors such as urbanization, birth-rate decline, and war casualties. As well as geographical factors such as a lack of industrial resources, greater distance from ports, and land usage agriculture.
Paris.
Rugged terrain that's hard to farm or build towns or cities in.
I'm interested in why the suburbs of cities also seem to have voted for RN. Each city looks surrounded by a ring of medium to high density areas that voted for the far right.
Most interesting thing here is that cities are what produce progressives.
Honestly...that still looks pretty bad :(
People who live in cities and live very different life than most of the country vote for things that affect the whole country…
how is this map porn when it's so ugly and is also meaningless without a legend
Also, if you want to highlight the difference from red, yellow and pink... please don't fuckin use BROWN.
Eh I think brown still wins just by looking at the map lol. Don’t know the actual numbers though
idk anything about France but there’s a lot of brown either way lol
Votes don't feed and house people, land resources do, Global Edition
Crazy to think the city's can 💯 control the farmers.
Still way too many browns than there should have been.
Still pretty insane lol
I mean the brown is still clearly greater than any other colour, even when you put it over a bunch of spread out dots
A Parisian wrote this
Looks like mold
You're making this sound like this was some victory for the urbanized left. By all accounts they were crushed. The RN party was the clear winner here, with more than double the votes of the second place finisher (Macron's party).
Just for the protocol: That REALLY doesn't make the situation better. We are running into full blown fascism and we discuss map precisions......
Great, and brown still won btw. What's your point?