Much of the news coverage of the French presidential election has noted the high turnout: 85%.
I thought it would be worth putting this in historical perspective, and also seeing whether turnout tends over time to be higher in the first or second round. We are currently between rounds of the ninth presidential election since the adoption of the Fifth Republic Constitution (1958, amended to have direct presidential elections in 1962).
Percent of electorate that voted in the first and second rounds:
-
1965, 84.8, 84.3
1969, 77.6, 65.5
1974, 84.2, 86.2
1981, 81.1, 85.9
1988, 81.4, 84.1
1995, 78.4, 79.7
2002, 71.6, 79.7
2007, 84.6, ??.?
So, first-round turnout in 2007 was indeed higher than for any first round since the very first presidential election in 1965. And it was a lot higher than in 2002, when complacency on the left both depressed turnout and helped Le Pen make it into the runoff. Note the spike in turnout in 2002 in the runoff (+8.1), when revulsion against Le Pen spurred many to vote, even though the result of the runoff was foregone as soon as Le Pen qualified for it. (Chirac won over 82% of the vote in the runoff.)
The mean change in turnout (runoff minus first round) is +0.9. Not much difference, although the mean masks the fact that in five of the seven runoffs to date, turnout indeed increased (average 2.1). The one case of a very large dropoff in the runoff, 1969, was one in which there was little doubt that Pompidou would win; aside from 2002, the 1969 election was the one with the least suspense over the outcome. On the other hand, there had been a close contest for second place in the first round that year.* (De Gaulle in 1965 faced a closer race in both rounds, although there was little doubt about that race’s outcome.)
While the high turnout in last Sunday’s first round was indeed a good story, the real story is more that of a rebound from the depressed turnout of 2002 than it was one of “historic participation.”
What will happen to turnout in the second round? There is genuine uncertainty about the result, so it should stay quite high, but I would not be surprised to see it drop a little bit, given that some of the boost Sunday was due to a desire to ensure Le Pen’s defeat. For some voters, there may be a sense of “mission accomplished.”
The runoff is 6 May.
* In fact, the 1969 contest bears some resemblance to 2002, in that the left was not represented in the runoff. However, it also differs in a very big way: The candidate who beat out the leading leftist was not an extremist. 1969 was the only election in which Francois Mitterrand was not a candidate from 1965 until the 1995 election, when he was completing his second seven-year term. The more popular of two candidates bearing the Socialist label in 1969, Jacques Duclos, won only 21.3% in the first round. The other had 5% (and there were other left candidates as well). This division meant that Alain Poher, running on the ticket of the Democratic Center and Radicals, qualified for the runoff with his 23.3% (just over half Pompidou’s total).
Data from the Mackie and Rose handbook for 1865-1988 and from Adam Carr thereafter.
One other interesting thing is the good score of centrist Bayrou. “The center is like the Bermuda triangle, everyting in it disappears” (quote of Jospin). Until now UDF owes his MPs to alliances with the gaullist party (UMP) so that in the second round there is one right candidate (UMP of UDF) against one left candidate. UDF was ‘non-gaullist right’ and not really ‘center’.
But this time Bayrou wishes to stay ‘free’ and gives no advice to his voters about the presidential run-off. He is preparing for the parliamentary elections: will there be many UDF candidates standing in the run-off and will they then make alliances with one of both sides?
Not surprisingly, Bayrou dislikes the two-round system that compels him to make a choice between right and left and prefers PR (MMP German style with a national list): “Je propose d’attribuer 50 % des sièges par circonscription – des députés qui représentent les territoires ; et 50 % des sièges à la proportionnelle par liste nationale, comme en Allemagne.”
Seed planted by Bancki — 25 April 2007 @ 06:26
I don’t think Bayrou can really command his supporters to do anything. Are there any studies on the ability of third or fourth placed candidates in the French runoff to carry their following to another candidate? The apparent heterogenity of Bayrou’s supporters would argue against it, even if taking a clear stand didn’t threaten political suicide.
I think however, if Bayrou doesn’t take a stand on the principles he rose to prominence on, like the convergence of media and industrial interests that Sarkozy represents, he’s going to be a forgotten man. Interesting dilemma.
Seed planted by Mike TeeVee — 25 April 2007 @ 11:47
Bayrou made his first step, now he has some support, but I do not think that his new party will push french party system to some other position.
First round showed that the distinction between “right” and “left” continues to fade as the candidates (maybe except Le Pen and some minor participants like Villiers or Laguiller) used every possible theme to gain support. The second round will continue in this “catch all” trend.
The final results are open, but I prefer Sarkozy, because of three reasons:
1. the turnout of 85% reveales that all who wanted to vote really came to polls and as there is no fear as it was 4 years ago when Le Pen made it into the runoff, those 15% will stay at home again
2. Le Pen’s votes will split into two groups – to stay home or to vote Sarkozy
3. Bayrou’s votes will divide into three parts – the stay homers, Sarkozy or Royal. The exact number are unknown but it is probable that it will be an equal split. We’ll see.
Seed planted by Darken — 27 April 2007 @ 12:51