Europe - The Official Thread

[TRGTspecialist]

Ironically, there was a fairly big polling error in the end:



Would like to see someone try and make a case for the "hidden Macron vote".........

In a free election, ten times as much of the French electorate chose a fascist as in the UK local elections last week. That should worry people about the rise of fascism in France. Instead they are today celebrating the kicking that they think the fascists got.

I guess people get a bit carried away with seeing things in a binary fashion when the result is what they wanted. Macron painted the electoral map yellow, so that's all that matters, right? No need to consider the scale of the numbers. It reminds me a bit of our EU referendum where I've heard so many times that "Northern Ireland and Scotland decisively voted to Remain", that you'd be forgiven for thinking that the 1.3 million Leave voters there didn't actually contribute to the national result.......

Having said that one interesting bit of context is despite the significant gains FN has made since 2002, plus the success and momentum populism has carried in recent times, in the past 5 months of polling Le Pen did not gain on Macron at all. There's even a couple of polls there from over a year ago, with Macron as a hypothetical Socialist candidate, with similar results. So if not given a kicking, it does appear she was at least decisively halted.

 

[Famine]

I guess people get a bit carried away with seeing things in a binary fashion when the result is what they wanted. Macron painted the electoral map yellow, so that's all that matters, right? No need to consider the scale of the numbers. It reminds me a bit of our EU referendum where I've heard so many times that "Northern Ireland and Scotland decisively voted to Remain", that you'd be forgiven for thinking that the 1.3 million Leave voters there didn't actually contribute to the national result.......

Having said that one interesting bit of context is despite the significant gains FN has made since 2002, plus the success and momentum populism has carried in recent times, in the past 5 months of polling Le Pen did not gain on Macron at all. There's even a couple of polls there from over a year ago, with Macron as a hypothetical Socialist candidate, with similar results. So if not given a kicking, it does appear she was at least decisively halted.

We'll see how it continues with next month's parliamentary elections...

It's interesting that all bar a few (I count 14) of the constituencies with a land border to the east - Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Italy - voted for Le Pen, along with all of the Mediterranean coast, while most of the west and Atlantic Coast was staunchly Macron. It's almost like a lot of people who see immigration want to vote for an anti-immigration platform or something...

 

[Milouse]

Ironically, there was a fairly big polling error in the end:

The last poll i published here (incomplete rolling as explained then), with red line completing to the actual result:

There's no "poll were wrong again" story here.

As i said with Famine, a part of the population has a capacity to mobilize itself in relation to the perceived danger, the more the danger seems real (and close, both numerically and in time), the more their vote would totally or partly compensate. It is not unlimited, though.
This phenomena is even more important with Macron, since he has a lot of fierce opponents among anti fascist that would refrain as much as possible to "trigger" their vote in his favor.

 

[Milouse]

What a load of rubbish. You may as well say that since you can make green from blue and yellow, all the blue and yellow votes are really green ones.

The largest single bloc of votes in your example, when voting is free, was for green. After all other candidates were eliminated and the two largest single blocs of votes remained, the largest was for blue.

Do i have to draw a dozens of squares and circles, some small and some big, to illustrate that the most voted circle compared to the most voted square is irrelevant when it comes to decide which, between square (fascist) and circles (non fascist), voters prefer?

Are you attempting to suggest that some of the candidates were in fact the same as Macron, so a vote for them was really for Macron? The questions there are fairly obvious - were there no differences in the platforms and if not, why were they even there, diluting the vote?

I did not try to suggest anything, i clearly wrote "does overlap" speaking of their platform (which is different from being the same). That the political game in first round of french elections; getting votes gives you both weight when negotiating alliances and momentum for the next election (here the parliamentary one in June).
Macron was so much in an overlap position that his raise in polls cut socialist party in half, almost destroying it, and also took a small bit to his right, with Républicains leaving their boat in the middle of the Fillon's campaign to join him.

This election is shaking the whole political landscape we know for decades in France. Parliamentary elections result could trigger a total recomposition with a merge between Front National with the most right wing of existing republican right, a similar merge to the far left, and finally a Macron's social-liberal party in the middle.

Nevertheless, these votes were not cast and cannot be counted as if they were! If they were really votes for Macron, they'd have been actually case for Macron.

I never counted them among his votes, but among his potential votes in case some more other voters would have planned to vote Le Pen, that is what you decided to understand. See my post above about polls for details.

 

[Famine]

There's no need to double-post. Use the multiquote feature.

Do i have to draw a dozens of squares and circles, some small and some big, to illustrate that the most voted circle compared to the most voted square is irrelevant when it comes to decide which, between square (fascist) and circles (non fascist), voters prefer?

You can if you want, but that would suggest that you can only tell parties apart by incredibly broad social policies and not any finer points or any economic policy. Are you familiar with the political compass at all?

If you believe that the two slightly lighter blue parties in your example are the same party as the blue one, you should surely be questioning why they exist and why they are diluting the vote. The fact is that they aren't they same, which is why they exist - not even two candidates for the same job at the same party are the same!

Edit: Wow. Here's your 'different shades of blue' for you.

Utterly ridiculous to suggest that a vote for any of them is easily transferred to Macron due to similarity of political position.

I did not try to suggest anything, i clearly wrote "does overlap" speaking of their platform (which is different from being the same).

Well of course they overlap. You won't have to look too hard to find policies that Le Pen and Macron overlap on. That doesn't mean that they can be counted as the same thing!

In the UK, all of the major parties occupy the same spot on the political compass. They're all broadly authoritarian and broadly conservative, with Labour being the least conservative and the Liberal Democrats being the least authoritarian. There is significant overlap between the three (and UKIP too) on a lot of issues, but they're some considerable distance from being the same party. Potentially if it went down to a head-to-head run off between the two main parties - Labour and Conservative - the Lib Dem vote would be split between them, the Green vote would be split between them and the UKIP vote would probably end up largely going to the Conservatives as the party was founded by single-issue Tories.

I never counted them among his votes, but among his potential votes in case some more other voters would have planned to vote Le Pen, that is what you decided to understand. See my post above about polls for details.

You said that if the non-voters had voted, he'd have gained another 2.5%. This is patently nonsense. You can't tell how non-voters would have voted because - and I know this is a shock - they didn't vote.

And this:

a part of the population has a capacity to mobilize itself in relation to the perceived danger, the more the danger seems real (and close, both numerically and in time), the more their vote would totally or partly compensate.

is an absolutely extraordinary claim that democracy in France is somehow protected by a cabal of the voting population that knows to go out and vote the 'right' way in case lots of people suggest they're going to go out and vote the 'wrong' way, but don't vote unless they're needed to.

I'm not sure how you're going to go about proving that these people exist, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so please go right ahead and do so. Otherwise it's just conjecture.


And all that aside I still don't know quite why you're fighting me for literally displaying the evidence with numbers that back up your own point about just how many people are voting for fascist parties. Christ knows what you'd do if I'd contradicted you...

 

[Milouse]

You said that if the non-voters had voted, he'd have gained another 2.5%. This is patently nonsense. You can't tell how non-voters would have voted because - and I know this is a shock - they didn't vote.

Unless those anti-Le Pen non-voters gave publicly and massively their position which is to chose to not give their vote to Macron in order to make him have the smaller score so that he couldn't take credit for it. But why you repeatedly ignore this is beyond me.

is an absolutely extraordinary claim that democracy in France is somehow protected by a cabal of the voting population

So extraordinary that neither you or i did that claim. You simply ignored my last sentence "It is not unlimited, though.".
You seems to try very hard to turn all my post into binaries concepts.

If you believe that the two slightly lighter blue parties in your example are the same party as the blue one, you should surely be questioning why they exist and why they are diluting the vote.

You initially made a whole reasoning in order to prove the weight of fascism in France by looking solely at the most popular candidate among fascists, compare to the most popular candidate among all non-fascist, and not the popularity of all fascists vs non-fascists. Their is no logic here. All my previous answers are about your initial post, not about politic spectrum in France.

And all that aside I still don't know quite why you're fighting me for literally displaying the evidence with numbers that back up your own point about just how many people are voting for fascist parties. Christ knows what you'd do if I'd contradicted you...

For sake of truth .
We could stop here on that matter then.

As a sign of reconciliation, i can offer fuel to your mill too: around 11,5% of people having the age to vote are not counted among potential voters (in order to vote in France, you need to sign on the Electoral List at least once in your life, usually when you're about to reach 18 yo). We can count them as people who don't stand against fascism.

 

[Famine]

Unless those anti-Le Pen non-voters gave publicly and massively their position which is to chose to not give their vote to Macron in order to make him have the smaller score so that he couldn't take credit for it. But why you repeatedly ignore this is beyond me.

What? You can't tell either way how they would have voted because they did not vote. This isn't a complex concept.

So extraordinary that neither you or i did that claim. You simply ignored my last sentence "It is not unlimited, though.".
You seems to try very hard to turn all my post into binaries concepts.

That this group of people exists at all is an extraordinary claim. It needs evidence that there is anyone in France who protects democracy by not voting unless necessary to vote for the 'right' candidate.

You initially made a whole reasoning in order to prove the weight of fascism in France by looking solely at the most popular candidate among fascists, compare to the most popular candidate among all non-fascist, and not the popularity of all fascists vs non-fascists. Their is no logic here. All my previous answers are about your initial post, not about politic spectrum in France.

The popularity of fascism in France can only be greater than or equal to the popularity of the leading fascist candidate.
The popularity of fascism in the UK can only be greater than or equal to the popularity of the leading fascist candidate.

In France that's 16.5% of the electorate (Le Pen) last week. In the UK that was 8.3% of the electorate in 2015 and 1.6% last week (UKIP).

All I'm pointing out is that the reaction to the French presidential election has been one of beating fascism, while the reaction to the UK parliamentary election in 2015 was one of kowtowing to it. If anything, they should be the other way about.

As a sign of reconciliation, i can offer fuel to your mill too: around 11,5% of people having the age to vote are not counted among potential voters (in order to vote in France, you need to sign on the Electoral List at least once in your life, usually when you're about to reach 18 yo). We can count them as people who don't stand against fascism.

You can certainly claim that they haven't stood against fascism rather than they don't.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You seems to try very hard to turn all my post into binaries concepts.

To be clear, you're kind-of saying that the results could be read differently if people voted differently. As it is everyone who was eligible to vote exercised their vote in one way or another. Some voted for a named candidate, some spoiled their papers, some used the blanc, some stayed a leur maison. Everyone one of those eligible voters is part of the final count - saying that people who voted in one of those ways might have voted differently because of x, y or z is pointless... because they didn't!

As an on-topic aside, some commentators are now spinning this as Macron 1st, Non/Spoiled/Blanc 2nd, Le Pen 3rd. Which is kind of true but just as pointless, in my opinion.

Here are some rough fag-packet numbers:

 

[Biggles]

And all that aside I still don't know quite why you're fighting me for literally displaying the evidence with numbers that back up your own point about just how many people are voting for fascist parties. Christ knows what you'd do if I'd contradicted you...

I think that's the point. There's no real disagreement about what happened. The far-right did gain a statistically significant increase in the vote ... but fears that it might actually take control of the political process proved unfounded. The everybody-else (for a variety of complex reasons) sided with the centrist candidate. The opposite (sort of) happened in the US election. Personally, I don't see an inevitable drift to the far right in the US or in Europe - that this may have marked a high-water mark for the far-right ... but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

 

[Milouse]

@Famine and @TenEightyOne, i don't make a general claim about every blank/null/didn't vote, i only make a claim about a known, quantifiable because publicly declared as such share of those blank/null/didn't vote. France Insoumise as to where they would have voted if needed, because they publicly claimed it. And their intention is seen in the result, because they increased the usual blank/null/didn't vote to a very unusual quantity that roughly match their declaration.
If someone tells you "i would vote against Le Pen but since Macron will win i don't need to so i won't", it is safe to consider this person would vote Macron if Le Pen would have risen to a certain point in polls. I didn't state more than that. I spoke about a reserve that would compensate in a different scenario, at no moment about a value to virtually add to the actual election result.

This mechanic of last minute barrage against Le Pen from the left is notorious in France and have also been seen during local elections (the last happened last year, this effect prevented Le Pen party to won several regions despite favorable positions), but this time it has been formalized and assumed by a part of a party to hold their hand.

 

[Milouse]

Some details from Ifop last public poll (the one used on the graph in my earlier post): who will vote for who, by gender, then age.

I guess @Biggles won't be surprised by the result.

For the next presidential election, we'll mechanically lose some elders that are today less likely to vote extreme right, replaced by younger that today vote more for Le Pen.

ps: @Famine, i know for the double post but i have a problem to access some functionality when editing (insert quote) and today, i have an XSS error from Chrome when accessing the advanced panel.

 

[Famine]

@Famine and @TenEightyOne, i don't make a general claim about every blank/null/didn't vote, i only make a claim about a known, quantifiable because publicly declared as such share of those blank/null/didn't vote. France Insoumise as to where they would have voted if needed, because they publicly claimed it. And their intention is seen in the result, because they increased the usual blank/null/didn't vote to a very unusual quantity that roughly match their declaration.
If someone tells you "i would vote against Le Pen but since Macron will win i don't need to so i won't", it is safe to consider this person would vote Macron if Le Pen would have risen to a certain point in polls. I didn't state more than that. I spoke about a reserve that would compensate in a different scenario, at no moment about a value to virtually add to the actual election result.

This mechanic of last minute barrage against Le Pen from the left is notorious in France and have also been seen during local elections (the last happened last year, this effect prevented Le Pen party to won several regions despite favorable positions), but this time it has been formalized and assumed by a part of a party to hold their hand.

It seems like you're literally talking about opinion polls and then scaling them onto the result, which you just can't do (opinion polls are tiny samples - your IFOP poll above is 1,861 people) and isn't evidence of:

a part of the population has a capacity to mobilize itself in relation to the perceived danger, the more the danger seems real (and close, both numerically and in time), the more their vote would totally or partly compensate

i know for the double post but i have a problem to access some functionality when editing (insert quote) and today, i have an XSS error from Chrome when accessing the advanced panel

Sounds like it's related to this. Have you reported the fault?

 

[Milouse]

It seems like you're literally talking about opinion polls and then scaling them onto the result, which you just can't do (opinion polls are tiny samples - your IFOP poll above is 1,861 people) and isn't evidence of:

Really? Here are quotes from my first two post on the subject:

No, i'm not suggesting that, i'm taking into account the public stance of some first round voters that said there is no equal sign between Le Pen and Macron but that they wouldn't put Macron ballot in order to have him make the smaller winning score in order to prepare the battle for the parliamentary election. By "some" first round voters, i mostly count Melenchon's voters (+19% in 1st round) that made a public vote about that between two rounds:
- 35,12% called for Blank or Null.
- 29,05% called for Abstention.
- 34,83% called for using a Macron ballot.
We indeed see them in final results number compared to other elections (abstention and blank/null).

That's is NOT a trend nor a polling, it's an estimation based on an actual vote set by France Insoumise formation, which has been confirmed in election by comparison with previous elections.

Unless a vote is literally a poll...
France Insoumise is the Party that supported Melenchon's candidature.

Still note that 1,861 is statistically a very good sample, no matter if you need to poll 100,000 or 100,000,000. Most inaccuracy of political polls have little to do with the statistical accuracy, it has to do with the ability from the polling institute to build pertinent sub-samples in order map the raw results to a correct published result.

Sounds like it's related to this. Have you reported the fault?

Yes, this is this. I faced it today only, i first suspected a Chrome update, apparently i was right.

 

[polysmut]

The popularity of fascism in France can only be greater than or equal to the popularity of the leading fascist candidate.
The popularity of fascism in the UK can only be greater than or equal to the popularity of the leading fascist candidate.

Can you explain that a bit more? I generally agree with your descriptions of elections but I don't currently see how that is a fact?

 

[Famine]

Unless a vote is literally a poll...
France Insoumise is the Party that supported Melenchon's candidature.

Still note that 1,861 is statistically a very good sample, no matter if you need to poll 100,000 or 100,000,000. Most inaccuracy of political polls have little to do with the statistical accuracy, it has to do with the ability from the polling institute to build pertinent sub-samples in order map the raw results to a correct published result.

Yes, a vote is literally a poll. You can't take the results of a poll and scale them onto an actual election and then pretend that you know who people would have voted for in the election if they had voted but didn't. You certainly can't pretend that they would have voted if they'd felt the need to but didn't because the 'right' person was going to win. All you know is that they didn't vote in the election.

Unless your sample size is the entire electorate and taken from the polling booth itself, a poll is just a poll. Fortunately we do have a sample where the size is the entire electorate, taken from the polling booth itself - the actual election.

Can you explain that a bit more? I generally agree with your descriptions of elections but I don't currently see how that is a fact?

It can't be less, otherwise the people wouldn't have voted for the fascist candidate(s). It can only be equal to the number of votes the fascist candidate(s) gained or greater than it through the votes (which could be anywhere between 0% additional support and 100% additional support - we don't know) not cast.

A vote is not divisible. A vote for a fascist candidate is support of fascism, regardless of whether your vote was placed for other reasons. This is part of the reason why I spoil my ballot every election, as I have yet to find a candidate whose policies I would be happy supporting across the board. I may like 95% of what they say, but if the 5% is immoral and awful and they immediately set about getting the immoral and awful policies instituted I would have no place to complain as I gave them the mandate to do so.

 

[polysmut]

A vote is not divisible. A vote for a fascist candidate is support of fascism, regardless of whether your vote was placed for other reasons. This is part of the reason why I spoil my ballot every election, as I have yet to find a candidate whose policies I would be happy supporting across the board. I may like 95% of what they say, but if the 5% is immoral and awful and they immediately set about getting the immoral and awful policies instituted I would have no place to complain as I gave them the mandate to do so.

This part of what you say is almost identical to my own views. I've spoiled more ballots than not in my 18 years of being old enough to vote. I believe in my reasons for doing so & occasionally rant about it.

I don't fully understand the sums/logic behind the part that I questioned right now but I suspect I'll grasp the concept better when I read it back more soberly.

 

[Famine]

I'll grasp the concept better when I read it back more soberly.

Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.

 

[polysmut]

Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.

Indubitably.

 

[Milouse]

Yes, a vote is literally a poll

Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.

Everything starts to make sense.

 

[polysmut]

It can't be less, otherwise the people wouldn't have voted for the fascist candidate(s). It can only be equal to the number of votes the fascist candidate(s) gained or greater than it through the votes (which could be anywhere between 0% additional support and 100% additional support - we don't know) not cast.

I see what you're saying now.

I don't think it's impossible for everybody to vote for a fascist without actually agreeing with fascist ideas themselves. However, a vote is literally support which is what I missed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Still note that 1,861 is statistically a very good sample

Not at 0.004% of the ultimate voting pool it isn't, in a sample that's so tiny you can't even reflect the per-commune variations that we saw, that's one polled sample for every 20 communes. That might be okay for a very rough trend but it gives you bugger all else.

 

[Milouse]

Not at 0.004% of the ultimate voting pool it isn't, in a sample that's so tiny you can't even reflect the per-commune variations that we saw, that's one polled sample for every 20 communes. That might be okay for a very rough trend but it gives you bugger all else.

Hence the "statistically" word in my phrase, and hence the phrase that followed, that you omit.

Looking for per-commune data is overkill for a national result, what you need is to get the right data that will extrapolate to the good result.
There is statistically no need, because no significative difference*, to use a bigger sample for a 100 millions vs a 1 million population size. For both a statistical standpoint and the nature of the sample in our case (not random), it's irrelevant to make a point by calculating the size of the sample divided by the size of the population.

In our case, what will determine your sample size depends of your sub-samples (age, urban/rural, previous votes...). And Ifop knows its subject judging by their results in both 1st and 2nd round of this election.

(*): For example, for a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 3, a random sample should be:
Population of 1 million > 1066
10 millions > 1067
100 millions > 1067
100 000 billions > still 1067
and so on...

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

The EU has a cartoon for you!

 

[Carbonox]

Where exactly do I put this? I guess here, since Germany's in Europe...

Diplomatic immunity strikes again! Yes he didn't do it on purpose, but that doesn't mean he should be excused for bogus political reasons...

 

[Dennisch]

I can't think of one good reason for diplomatic immunity to exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can't think of one good reason for diplomatic immunity to exist.

It's an essential part of free movement of diplomats... but in cases like this there should be a stronger effort to get a diplomat's home country to waive immunity. As it is it seems the diplomat will just return home. That brings justice for nobody.

 

[Dennisch]

It's an essential part of free movement of diplomats... but in cases like this there should be a stronger effort to get a diplomat's home country to waive immunity. As it is it seems the diplomat will just return home. That brings justice for nobody.

As I said. No good reason. It's just ridiculous. Every city that houses diplomats sees this kind of stuff happen and no one to blame.

 

[Vegard]

No good reason.

It ensures that diplomats are able to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country.

Obviously this can be abused, in which case we can call Sgt. Murtaugh:

Spoiler

 

[Dennisch]

It ensures that diplomats are able to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country.

That's pretty much what @TenEightyOne said.

And thus my answer remains the same.

 

[Vegard]

And thus my answer remains the same.

So, ensuring that diplomacy can function is not a good reason?