France Elections: Left-Wing Alliance Surpasses Le Pen’s National Rally
Euronews TV: “France’s anti-far right forces have pushed Marine Le Pen’s National Rally from first to third place.”
France’s left-wing alliance is set to emerge as the largest bloc in the second and final round of the parliamentary election, early projections show. The leftist New Popular Front is being followed by President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble alliance, pushing Marine Le Pen’s National Rally to the third spot.
New Popular Front, a coalition of leftist and Communist parties, is expected to win 172 to 192 seats, according to exit polls on Sunday evening. President Macron’s pro-EU alliance is set to get between 150 and 180 seats, ahead of the right-wing National Rally, which is set to secure between 120 and 150 seats.
If exit polls prove correct, no party or bloc may be able to get an absolute majority of 289 seats in the 650-member parliament, resulting in a hung parliament, French media reports indicate.
🔴🇫🇷 France's left-wing #NewPopularFront coalition won the most seats, but fell short of an absolute majority (pollsters @IpsosFrance/@Talan_World)
💬"The President has a duty to call on the New Popular Front to govern," says founder of the France unbowed party @JLMelenchon ⤵️… pic.twitter.com/xOkc0X0Sx6
— FRANCE 24 English (@France24_en) July 7, 2024
The French TV channel Euronews reported the exit polls released on Sunday evening:
France’s anti-far right forces have pushed Marine Le Pen’s National Rally from first to third place in France’s legislative assembly elections second round, according to poll estimates following the close of voting.
The left-wing coalition, the New Popular Front (NFP), is expected to have between 172 and 192 seats, the IPSOS poll found. Meanwhile, the centrist liberal democrats of President Emmanuel Macron are to reach between 150 and 170 seats, pollsters say, while the centre-right Republicans (LR) could get between 57 and 67 parliamentary seats.
National Rally, the far-right party led by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, is predicted to garner between only 132-152 seats, giving it likely third place, trailing recent Ipsos projections that Le Pen and her allies from the Republicans party might win between 230 and 280 seats.
France, Ipsos exit poll:
Snap national parliament election, second round (seat distribution)
NFP-LEFT|G/EFA|S&D: 172-192
Ensemble-RE: 150-170
RN and allies-ID: 135-155
LR-EPP: 57-67
Divers gauche-*: 13-16
Divers-*: 8-11
UDI-RE: 6-8➤ https://t.co/oL97q6lO3I #législatives2024… pic.twitter.com/O9jorohZSY
— Europe Elects (@EuropeElects) July 7, 2024
In the first round of the polls held on July 1, National Rally — led by its new leader, 28-year-old Jordan Bardella — emerged as the largest party, winning over 33 percent of the vote and close to winning a majority in France’s lower house National Assembly.
President Macron called the snap elections after his party was trounced by the National Rally in the recent European Union election.
Goodnight France. You’ve always been good at being rapidly conquered. https://t.co/luriE9EqF1
— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) July 7, 2024
Police, shops owners fear violent leftist mobs
Business owners boarded up their shops in upscale areas Paris to prevent looting and arson by leftist and migrant protesters triggered by the election results.
“Shops on central Parisian streets like the Champs Elysees began boarding up their facades ahead of the results, DW TV reported Sunday evening as polls closed. “Some retailers in the more upmarket streets of central Paris had kept barricades up all week between the two rounds of voting, fearing potential protests or vandalism in the aftermath of the results following a fractious snap election campaign.”
Police has been mobilized to protect the French parliament from potential angry leftist mobs.
“Police vans are now parked outside France’s National Assembly building in Paris as the second round enters its final stages,” Euronews reported Sunday evening. “Politicians have warned of potential violence tonight once the results come out and have urged citizens to take necessary precautions.”
There are reports of celebrations over National Rally’s poor showing in the election.
“People gathered at the Place de la République in Paris and chanted, “Everyone hates fachos (fascists),” following the results of the snap legislative elections,” France24 reported.
« tout le monde déteste les fachos » est scandé par les manifestants présents sur la place de la #Republique après les résultats des élections législatives #ElectionsLegislatives2024 #legislatives2024 #FrontPopulaire pic.twitter.com/dtmkgHP7A3
— Timothée Forget (@xztim_) July 7, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
so the violence from the leftwingers in the streets has given them the edge?
Several places I’ve read, “French Jews get out while you can.”
This is a horrible day for world Jewry, not just French Jewry. Not only will it be open season to massacre Jews in France, but a vile Jew-hating Nazi like Melanchon will not hesitate to threaten Israel with nuking it if it invades Lebanon.
It likely sets up a second Holocaust and a civilization=ending nuclear response by Israel.
Eric R.,
I met a guy about ten years ago and he was about thirty-five years old with dual US/French citizenship. I asked about his two passports and he said when mom was pregnant with each of her kids she came to stay with family here in the USA so they would be granted US citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At the time I met him the world wasn’t as crazy as it is today so I asked him what gave his parents clairvoyance to see the future of France? He said it was one of many protections their family has been building into their plans ever since the end of WWII so if it ever happens again they have a way to escape. I guess one day all of those pristine French rifles might acutally be shot?
Yeah…..the French leftists hate Isreal more than the old school NOT SEES. No more Mirage jets. Good thing we sold Isreal F-35’s.
You can never just flush these grasping power-hungry turds, can you?
I take it that you’ve never been to Paris?
The French sewer system just couldn’t handle it.
Besides, what did those rats crawling down there ever do to you that you’d subject them to this cruelty?
Mayor of Paris announces she will bathe in the Seine during the week of 15 July
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1146129/mayor-announces-bathe-seine-week-55-july
If you search “Seine river ran red” it will lead you down an interesting rabbit hole of French history a mere 63 years ago.
The two right wing parties, taken together, got more deputies than the left wing alliance.
The hard leftist Mélenchon, the leader of the left alliance, is now calling on Macron to resign immediately.
Pretty stupid, as the left will need Macron’s support to form a government.
I could be wrong (because I generally find parliamentary elections confusing AF), but it seems that the French system of having two rounds of voting favors the establishment. If an insurgent party – like NR – does surprisingly well in the 1st round, it allows the establishment to work with more favorable parties to marginalize the insurgency in key races. That appears to have worked a treat for the left today.
I would be really curious what the seat count would have been if France had a one-round, first-past-the-post system as exists in the UK.
It favors the voter, not the establishment. First-past-the-post is just fundamentally unfair. Nobody should ever be elected without a majority saying they prefer that person to any available alternative. If the voter has all the information he needs and makes the wrong choice, that’s democracy. Look at Georgia or Louisiana, where they do this regularly.
Preferential voting (aka, “ranked choice”, or “instant run-off”, or several other names), as has been used in Australia for nearly a century, is the best system, because it gets an accurate snapshot of voters’ wishes on election day, so everyone has the same information and there’s no room for manipulation in between rounds, as happened in France where candidates resigned so as to force their supporters to vote for someone else. Let the voters make those choices, not the candidates. In Australia the candidates recommend how their supporters should allocate their preferences, and have volunteers hand out “how-to-vote” cards with their recommendations, but their voters are free to ignore those suggestions.
A true ‘ranked choice’ would follow the same format as the weekly college football polls. So it five candidates then each voter puts them in order of preference 1-5. Then that ranking is assigned points inverse to the ranking so:
#1 gets 5 pts, #2 gets 4 pts all the way down to #5 which gets 1 pt. If the voter chooses to decline to assign any points to candidates #2-#5 that’s fine as well.
Then add the points for each candidate. Most points is the winner. One day election. Very simple. Combines elements the advocates of ‘ranked choice’ desire but removes complexity while also putting the preferences of the voter as the priority over the mechanics of the process.
I could probably get behind this system so long as it wasn’t used as gateway to jungle primary nonsense or ridiculous (IMO) ‘ranked choice’ where the voter’s political power is automatically transferred by the mechanics of the process.
Ranked choice voting is retarded
That is not a fair system, and is more complicated than the simple system marketed as “instant run-off”, which a child of ten can easily understand, and nobody in Australia has any problem understanding. What could be more simple than just rank all the candidates in your order of preference? Whom do you want to win? If that person can’t win, whom of the remaining candidates would you want to win? If you can’t have that one either, is there anyone of the rest you like better than the others? Keep going until you run out of candidates, or until you hate them all equally and don’t care which of them wins. Then count them accordingly. If someone gets a majority of first preferences, then great, they’re elected. If not, eliminate the one with the least support, and allocate all his votes to their second choice. Keep doing that until someone has a majority. What could be simpler? And what could be more fair?
The system we and the UK have now is what produces results like the UK just got, where Reform gets 14% of the vote and only 4 seats, because their support is spread relatively evenly rather than clumped up in a few areas.
The college football poll rankings are not complicated. But if that’s too much then lets keep first past the post (though I can see an argument for a general election runoff (not part primary) of the top two if no one gets 50%+1 vote). While we are making ‘reforms’ lets also ensure that the CD apportioned TO each State are drawn WITHIN the State to roughly equal # (+/- 10%) numbers of Citizens to maintain a roughly equal amount of political power for each Citizen. Then junk the discriminatory ‘minority majority’ CD nonsense. Then pass the SAVE act to help clarify that only Citizens may vote in Federal elections and provide penalties (deportation) as well as remedy errors and assist in getting newly naturalized Citizens registered.
The system you describe is much more complicated than standard preferential voting, “instant run-off”, which has been tried and tested for a century in Australia. Why do you reject it so vehemently? It’s the fairest possible system, and it’s completely simple to understand how it works.
That’s already the law.
That’s already the law as well. The problem is catching people who violate it, and then proving beyond reasonable doubt that they did so on purpose. They usually plead ignorance, saying that they don’t read English well, they signed where they were told to, and nobody told them they had to be citizens.
Milhouse
No the CD are not currently drawn to comprise no more than a 10% +/- variance in the # of Citizens. They are currently drawn without any imperative to achieve an end result which ensures roughly equal numbers of Citizens.
The system I suggest is widely understood by tens of millions of people already. It ain’t complicated but again I ain’t the one arguing to ditch first past the post either. The only other alteration I might be on board for is requiring a 50%+1 absolute majority as part of the current first past the post system to get a consensus, though I would simply require a repeat election until the majority emerged and the seat would be vacant until then (-President/VP).
The SAVE act assists to close up any holes based on variation among the States in how they register voters for Federal elections while also requiring ICE notification for violations and assists newly naturalized Citizens to register. It isn’t redundant.
Oh, I didn’t notice that you wrote “citizens”, not “people”. The supreme court requires that districts include roughly the same number of people, since a representative represents all of his constituents, not only those eligible to vote. The constitution explicitly says that states’ representation should reflect their total population, not just those who are citizens, or who are eligible to vote; it follows that the same principle should apply to each district. If a state’s entire delegation represents all of its people, then each member must represent all of the people in his district. If each member only represents the citizens in his district, then who represents all the aliens that the constitution says must be represented?
Milhouse,
Apportionment of CD AMONG the States is required to be done by total State population. However once the # of CD are assigned to each State then IMO the CD WITHIN that State should be drawn with an additional factor of getting the # of Citizens to within 10%(+/-) variance.
That political representative still represents all the people within that CD whether they are Citizens or not, voted or not are adults or not, eligible to vote or not.
We have some very skewed CD out there with one CD having 100K Citizens and a neighboring CD having 250K Citizens. This has the effect of granting more than double the political power for the ballot of the CD with the smaller # of Citizens and an diminishing of the political power of each Citizen in the CD with more than twice the Citizens.
This is in practice and effect the creation of ‘rotten Buroughs’. We should work proactively to avoid this.
CommoChief, if your objective is to equalize the power of voters, then making districts have approx the same number of citizens doesn’t do that. If that’s your objective you should require them to have approx the same number of registered voters, or at least of people eligible to vote. What’s the difference between a district with a disproportionate number of aliens and one with a similarly disproportionate number of minors, or of felons, or even of people who are eligible to vote but never do?
The framers made the deliberate decision to give states representation not according to their number of eligible voters but according to their population, with the sole exception of a discount for 40% of a state’s slaves. So, even leaving aside the compromise on slaves, eligible voters would have more power in a state with more women, minors, aliens, felons, people who didn’t meet the property requirements, etc., than they would in a state with fewer of those people. And they were perfectly fine with this, except for the slavery issue. It simply stands to reason that the same principle should apply within a state.
This is why people need to learn history.
We HAD this system for state house voting in Illinois. It was the “bullet vote” — every voter had 3 votes for the house election in their district. Each of the two major parties pledged to run no more than 2 candidates. A voter could split their votes as they wished — all 3 for one, or each for a different candidate, or 2 here and 1 there.
It was a disaster. Bad enough that even the pols in Illinois, crooked as they were, couldn’t take the heat, and abolished the bullet vote with the new state constitution.
Not the same as what I proposed at all. A.voter can’t assign ‘additional’ pts to a single candidate in my plan. The voter can only withhold pts from the other candidates he refuses to place in rank order. So if he wants Frank as #1 then Frank gets 5 pts (assuming five candidates) but then writes none for choices 2-5 then no other pts are assigned. Thus the voter retains full authority and doesn’t surrender any power to the mechanics of the system as would be the case in ‘ranked choice’.
I would prefer to keep first past the post with a return to one day in person paper ballots in many disparate precincts v big central voting places with strict ID and voter registration maintenance standards…. but if we simply must change b/c (?) then I like my proposal better than other alternatives.
You clearly don’t grasp how ranked choice works and what it results in. It’s a garbage system
I grasp it very well. I bet you don’t.
The only thing you grasp is how to google crap… you are so weird… Hey why don’t you google and paste a bunch more irrelevant crap about Australia. What an utter poser you are
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I didn’t have to google anything, I know this stuff. And the Australian experience is directly relevant. That proves that this works and is dead simple. In 100 years there have been no complaints about it, and even ten-year-olds understand it.
Ranked Choice is how conservative Alaska got a leftist Congresscritter. NO THANKS!
That is what the Alaskan voters wanted. Therefore that is the right and just outcome. Begich deserved to win that seat, and taking it away from him would be stealing, and undemocratic.
First-past-the-post is just fundamentally unfair
Aren’t you supposed to be fluffing for Biden, Democrat?
No one needs you shilling for your foreign leftist comrades here.
Go back to Hell, you filthy lying demon. You are a worthless piece of manure, allergic to the truth.
Ranked choice voting is a safety net for the establishment. Even the unpopular incumbent gets a free vote down the ranking.
No, it is not a safety net for the establishment. A candidate only gets preferences if people actually prefer him to the only viable alternative. Which is exactly as it should be.
First past the post is what forces people to vote for an unpopular candidate just because he’s marginally better than the alternative, and deprives them of any other choice. It’s what keeps the two major parties in their impregnable position, because people are afraid to vote for any alternative to them. So alternative parties never have a chance to get a foothold. First past the post means the two majors never have to cater to their base, because they know those votes are locked in, so they only have to go after the swing voters.
if France falls in the middle of the night will Joe hear it?
You have reached the Byedumb nuclear hotline…… our regular hours are 10 am to 4 pm. If you have reached us outside those hours please leave a message and we will get to your crisis in the order of your call… ..
Only if there’s ice cream involved.
While I don’t care about France and their outcome much, I am curious if this means their slide into Muslim hell will be affected by the outcome.
Yes. The slide will be accelerated.
This is France. They gave the world Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety (if safety means death by the guillotine and nascent insane communist radicalism) and the Vichy regime. If Britain has capitulated to the leftist insanity, no way France has the integrity or courage to do it. It just isn’t in the French national character.
France’s nukes are my biggest concern. It is important that deranged Muslims do not get ahold of them. How do we ensure that? One way might be bribes and relocation of their submarine crews. I bet Israel would be happy to acquire those subs. And, there is the issue of other nukes and tech in France.
Britain’s nukes are in the same boat.
England has nukes and the lefties took over with help from Muslims.
France has nukes and the lefties took over with help from Muslims.
The US has nukes and Biden is kissing muslim butt to get re-elected.
Jews are an endangered spieces and soon, Christians will be as well.
England still has some some chance of recovering, maybe by driving their Muslims to France.
And something else this, the recent British disgrace, and frankly any democrat success in this country demonstrates. Voters are stupid. I mean just irredeemably frigging stupid. Can’t quite explain how this country ever managed to come into being but voter stupidity pretty much dominates globally today.
There’s a reason that things like owning property or being able to read or being male were uses to restrict who can vote.
I’m referring to the irresponsible and ignorant exercise of the franchise to the ultimate detriment of your own country. I didn’t say restrict votes but voting with your head up your ____, probably isn’t the wisest course.
Yeah. That’s the same thing. Now you just have to realize that “voting without your head up your ass” is only possible when voting is restricted so that people with their head up their ass are restricted.
No, the British outcome is not the result of voters being stupid, it’s the result of voters being intelligent enough to understand that the only way out of the current situation was to vote Reform and let the Tories fall, and accept that this would mean five years of Labour government. It was conservative voters who brought about the outcome, not socialist voters or swing voters. And it’s the result of first-past-the-post voting, just like in the USA.
Everyone voting Reform knew what they were doing and chose to put Labour in, judging that it was worth it, and I think they were right. It’s a tough price to pay, but it’s better than the alternative of voting Conservative again and getting the same result as the last time.
Th existing political structure will make all sorts of compromises to thwart a rising populist movement (see French elections) and if that won’t work they will run the ship aground rather than defer to prevailing populist mood/wishes of the voters (see Brexit, huge majority for Tories in ’19 squandered to result in last week’s British election).
It is absolutely delusional to think the western nations are able to fix their political problems by voting.
Has freedom ever been restored without massive use of force and the horror that goes with it.
The ’94 midterms ushered in a GoP majority HoR for the first time 40+ years and eventually got Clinton to sign off on reduced federal spending and some reforms of welfare eligibility.
The real issue is vigilance by voters. As soon as they get bored/lose focus and take their eyes of politicians the politicians gonna start backsliding.
It did. How did it work for securing national elections, holding entrenched government bureaucracies accountable for the evil deeds of their members, rolling back government surveillance of citizens, or ending the absolute catastrophe of federal reserve control of our currency? Or even ensuring our domestic security by promoting policies so our military has a functional domestic supply chain in case of war?
Ya know…actual freedom stuff and not a fake balanced budget for a couple of years.
Shades of our November?
Yep … typical French.
In 5 years, the Muslims will have run over France and England, the only fun will be seeing the Muslims and Cultural Marxists fight it out afterwards.
I am more worried about our fate.
The fix was in
France … Exit stage Left.
One of the people elected to Parliament today is a guy named Raphaël Arnault. Prior to being elected, Mr. Arnault was the leader of Antifa in France and enjoyed a prominent spot on the French terror watchlist, because of it.
There is no ‘right’ in France, much less ‘far right. NR is a center-left organization that believes in securing the border and maintaining a French national identity. Rather than do that, the good people of France would prefer to elect literal Communists & fascists. God help them because no one else is.
“Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party won EVERY single French department except for Paris in the EU Elections.”
https://x.com/CilComLFC/status/1810101454507573560
Unbelievable. The entire map of France is blue (NR) with the exception of the department that’s home to Paris (Seine). This is an ideal lesson about the importance of the Electoral College. While it’s not a perfect comparison to the US because ‘Departments’ aren’t quite the equivalent of states, it goes a long way towards demonstrating why there has to be some robust protection against densely concentrated urban areas completely overwhelming the entire country.
As the X-poster says, imagine Republicans winning every state but one yet having a hyper-minority of House seats and Trump winning every state in the country except DC and still losing the election. That’s where France is.
You didn’t read carefully enough.
Yes, RN won every department except Paris in the EU Elections. And it got the corresponding outcome. But this was not the EU election. In this election it did not win every department except Paris. If it had it would have an overwhelming majority; it has a rather large minority because all over France people in enough seats, when faced with a choice of only RN or a Marxist, chose the Marxist. Not that they wanted the Marxist, but they’d rather have that then the NR.
Milhouse can be (and often is) insufferably arrogant, but he is usually correct (maybe 80% of the time). On this thread he is correct. “Ranked choice” is more fair and accurately reflective of the majority of voters’ political views. Yes, it does sometimes produce unexpected results but, on balance, better results. And what he said above about the French: “when faced with a choice of only RN or a Marxist, chose the Marxist” is correct. My wife is French and voted in this election. Understand that only in America do we (at least the non-Democrats) have a fundamental distrust of government so that our basic Constitution restrains its power in many ways.
In today’s world, what odds do you give that any Leftist regime in any Western country can be removed by electoral means; given the proven efficacy of election fraud?
Subotai Bahadur
The same odds as ever. I’m not aware of any evidence of significant fraud in France or in the UK. The French result is because a lot of people can’t get over their fear of a party that used to be explicitly neo-nazi, even though it is now reformed. And the UK result is because enough conservative voters decided it was more important to teach the Tories a lesson than to give them another five years to mess up.
It is practically impossible for fraud to affect the British elections given;
Photo ID required to vote..
Vote in person on the day.
Voting used physical paper ballots.
Very limited reasons as to why one can vote by post.
The dead stay dead in the UK.
This is why the result was known by 5am the next day.
In the past there was wide scale postal fraud in Tower Hamlets that resulted in police action being taken and an election result nullified.
Tower Hamlets has a high proportion of snack bar lovers.
That, but another reason is that there was only one ballot to count. In the USA there are usually a dozen or more.
Most intelligent people can count to at least 10 using their fingers…twenty if they take their shoes off! 😉
No, there are a dozen different ballots to count, unlike the UK where there is one. Obviously it’s a lot quicker to count one ballot than a dozen. Especially if you’re doing it by hand, with paper ballots.
The French aren’t strong enough to do what’s necessary. Nobody is.
this cant happen fast enough:
resulting in a hung parliament
macron did the hillary to bernie deal with his lefty comrades in france
drop out
combine forces retain power