The lack of even the most basic understanding of parliamentary politics flying around in this thread is appalling, but certainly illustrates the reason why there are so many wild takes flying around on Lemmy.
To summarize:
- The right got a 2/3rds majority in parliament. The united left had the most votes of any individual group, but that’s only around 1/3 total.
- The reason the left proclaimed they “won” is they came “first” and thought the center-right party would ally with them rather than the “hard right” (welp)
- That, in isolation (!), isn’t antidemoratic. A majority of French representatives (presumably) approve of the government. Simple maths. A government can only govern with the approval of parliament, it literally can’t work otherwise.
- However the French voting system very strongly relies on strategic voting, and the far-right came very close to having a parliamentary majority. Therefore the center-right party only got the seats they did because everybody left of the far-right made electoral agreements to pull out their candidates so only the candidate with the most chances to win against the far right would be running. This heavily benefited the center-right party who then allied with the hard right, which is being perceived as treason (for lots of reasons that I’m not going to get into). Strategic voting is a democratic failures and leads to suboptimal choices for representatives (thought that is still miles better than whatever the fuck the CCP is doing, since apparently that needs saying on here). Furthermore this whole shift to the right certainly isn’t going to help with the socio-economic issues and is going to end up benefiting the far-right.
The left won a plurality, the right is in charge.
This is the counterargument to those who want multiparty democracy.
This is a counter argument to having a constitution that allows the president to do what Macron did. There are basically nothing stopping him besides tradition and good will.
Every multiparty system allows someone to do what Macron did, it’s baked in. When no party has a majority, multiple coalitions are possible. Someone has to choose which of those possibilities gets the first opportunity to make a government.
As far as I know, by tradition, Macron should have taken the NFP’s candidate as prime minister even though they only had a small majority. Then the assembly could have censored the government or not, basically triggering a new election if they did.
Macron, knowing what we want better than everyone else, took a shortcut by making shoddy alliances with the traditional right and the far right to name Barnier.The only reason he refused to name Castet was because she wanted to reverse his retirement reform (which was also rejected by the far right, so it could have actually been removed). But the official communications were all about “nobody really won the election” or “it would be ungovernable”.
Macron is a child throwing tantrums because what he wants is best and he knows better than us peasants, he sees himself as a benevolent dictator, as in, he is making the tough decisions because he knows he’s right. And in our constitution, the president has extensive powers that allow him to act in such a way if he wants to, with basically no checks and balances but honesty and tradition.
And in all that, some members of his former government won seats at the assembly, and kept their positions as ministers too. So we had deputies-ministers, wrapping up the “urgent matters” and setting themselves up for their next jobs. They effectively wrote budgets that, they themselves will vote for in the next few weeks. That’s effectively breaking the separation of power
Nah nothing to do with multiparty, the problem is with the fith republic of France giving too much power to the president.
If I had £1 for every time the right had a mysterious unfair advantage in a democratic system, I’d buy myself a politician
The prime minister of France is not an elected position but appointed by the president. This has nothing to do with multiparty democracy.
What’s the point of holding elections if the winner is an appointed position?
What? Not all positions are elected, in no system. Or when did you vote for secretary of state in the US?
*looks at FPTP countries with two party systems* yeah, they are doing grand.
Italy and Israel are among the purest forms of multiparty democracy, and I’ll take any FPTP government over those two.
You think Italy’s and Israel’s problems are due to their form of democracy? 🤣🤣🤣
In part, yes. It gives extremists more voice in government then they deserve.
Technically the left didn’t win the majority of seat in the parliament. They have a relative majority as in they are the biggest group in parliament by a small margin but they don’t have the majority needed to make a stable government.
A majority vote from the parliament can oust the PM and his government.
If you take all the right wing parties, they hold the majority of seats (2/3rd). A left leaning government would last 48 hours, so in spite of french leftists telling everyone they “won”, they didn’t.
Our electoral system is very flawed though and the current make up of the parliament is not representative of what people want, there are much better voting system for plurality based political system that could be implemented.
In every country the biggest party would be the one that would at least get a first shot at forming a government.
And if the leader of the second biggest party would rather work with the third biggest party?
Then the biggest party could well remain out of government, because someone decided that a different coalition would form the government.
The virtue of a two party popular vote is that once the votes are counted there is a clear winner determined by the voters, and nobody can change the winner behind the scenes.
Yes, that ends up happening sometimes, but the winner will at least be allowed to try.
They did. They proposed a candidate and she wasn’t accepted.
Coalition building happens in a two party system, too. The difference is that it happens before the election, not after. That way the voters, not the coalition builders, get the final say.
In a two party system the power balance within the coalition is decided behind closed doors and the voters have no say in it
That’s true, but they have complete control of who wins the election.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
