Talk:2017 French legislative election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion polls[edit]

Are more recent opinion polls not available? Charles Essie (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, and there will likely not be any until after the presidential election. Traditionally, the results of legislative elections closely match those in the presidential (as there isn't much time for voter preferences to change – deliberate choice to prevent cohabitation). There usually aren't any polls conducted until after the presidential race is wrapped up for this reason. In any case, the possibility of cohabitation would increase dramatically this year if either Macron or Le Pen won, as either would likely have an extremely disruptive impact on the results of the legislative elections (attempting to shut out the FN at all costs, or En Marche ! jockeying for pole position, etc.) If you're curious, the current "consensus" among French political observers is a centre-right landslide in the legislative elections. Mélencron (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newest Opinion Poll survey[edit]

This poll doesn't seem like much of a "poll" as it states it gets its final projections mainly from the 2017 presidental election results by constituency so it may not be entirely accurate. Should we put a disclaimer next to it for that? (as pres election =/= legislative, especially considering EM hasnt got an actual party behind it and it'd be against a lot of known candidates)

WolvesS (talk) WolvesS:After looking through the french wikipedia, I can see they put in the polling sample that Opinionway didn't poll anyone and it's entirely based on previous elections, maybe it's wise to put the disclaimer, as I said. WolvesS (talk) WolvesS
It's a poll based on a survey asking about voting intentions for the legislative elections, further adjusted using a model accounting for the results of the 2012 presidential, 2015 regional, and 2017 presidential elections, among other adjustments. If I recall correctly they've also worked with SLPV Analytics in the past on similar projects (before the first round they worked to model the results of the presidential by department and region based on their rolling poll). This differs from a similar projection they made in June 2016, which was solely based on the results of previous elections and did not utilize any separate survey of voting intentions for the legislative. I'll see if the polling commission publishes a notice for this poll. Mélencron (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote/disclaimer/something certainly seems in order. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like fairly standard weighting to me (usually it's just the past presidential and regional, though...) Mélencron (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll see if the polling commission publishes a notice for this poll." That does seem best, it was just that the french wikipedia stated that there was not a single sample size and it was entirely based upon the results of previous elections so I thought a footnote should be included. WolvesS (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)WolvesS[reply]
That was what the description in the original article sounded like, as I recall correctly (I remember hearing about it a few hours after it was published and assumed it was just basically the same as the June 2016 "poll"). I'm not sure if they'll publish a notice by tomorrow, though. Mélencron (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who read English Wikipedia don't know squat about the intricacies of French politics[edit]

Many have heard about Hollande, Macron and Le Pen, but who knows, besides maybe Mélencron, what parties are participating in the legislative election. The left is in shambles, the right is almost as bad, and party system itself is in complete flux. Readers of English Wikipedia need to know who is participating and what their positions are. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, it's like, that's what we're trying to fix. WolvesS (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox legislative election[edit]

Ideally the heading "Party" should be "Coalition/Party". That would save a lot of explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodsham (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but as it is now, the infobox does not make sense. There are various confusions, as are listed :

- parliamentary forces : "parliamentary left" and "parliamentary right"

- political groups : "Democratic and Republican Left", "Non-inscrits"

- electoral forces : "Presidential majority and allies", "La France Insoumise and allies"

And those different categories overlap one another, resulting in the total of 625 current seats, whereas there are only 577 seats, from which 8 are vacants.

I believe a more relevant categorization would be by using the electoral forces, in which case would be listed :

- PS and allies

- LR and allies

- FN and allies

- En Marche - Presidential Majority and allies

- La France Insoumise and allies

- PCF and allies

- EELV and allies


But due to the extreme difficulty to differenciate between the political etiquettes of various candidates - for example, Sergio Coronado is a member of EELV but recieved the backing of La France Insoumise and thus is claimed by La France Insoumise -, it might be simpler to list the political groups.

Adding En marche ![edit]

Hi @Mélencron: could you add EM in the infobox because the party have 25 deputies ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll figure out the infobox issues shortly. Mélencron 19:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014: do you have a source for particular numbers of deputies attached to each party? I assume that the 25 number is just the 24 invested plus Philippe; I might be wrong about this, but is he not keeping his label? Mélencron 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in fact Philippe will not be excluded from LR, but the 24 invested are former socialists, two ecologists (Pompilii and Rugy) and a radical left. But Philippe will be labeled "presidential majority". MoDem have not deputies. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First round results[edit]

It might be helpful to add, if anyone knows the answer, a note on when the first round results will start to be known. In particular, will any overseas results from round one be declared before metropolitan France votes? European Prehistorian (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outgoing deputies by party[edit]

Just as a note to self. No double-counting, primary label if possible. Mélencron 00:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary left 308 (assumes all DVG, -1 because of de Rugy), parliamentary right 226 (-1 because of Philippe, +6 for other UDI), Left Front 13 (excluding DVG, assumed to be all with parliamentary left) Mélencron 00:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Away[edit]

Going to be away until 20 June and won't be editing. I trust that you (Ternoc especially) will be able to keep this page in shape until then. As a result, I won't be adding any additional polls that might be published tomorrow, updating the associated graph, the results tables, or maps, so it would be appreciated if one of you could take care of it. (I assume given Ternoc's work that they'll probably create the main constituency winner map for use in the article.) I've hidden some useful formatting in comments (); just remove the surrounding comment formatting to reveal/update them as needed. Just a few things to remember:

  • The infobox should contain only results for the first and second rounds when each is complete,
  • Sources! I like to maintain a uniform format for my references, so it would be appreciated if those could be kept consistent, and
  • Defer to the French Wikipedia or seek talk page consensus if necessary.

See you on the other side. Mélencron 03:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes for readability to the Background section (and moved a section of the Legislative system there instead) if Ternoc and Mélencron could review I would be grateful. Some of the terminology was a bit 'google translate' and less than clear in English. I also added a new bit on the Dual Mandate (cumul des mandats) abolition with ref. I'll stop there! Wikimucker (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leader[edit]

Hi @Mélencron: Xavier Sylvestre and Impru20 have removed Cazeneuve without consensus. For the rest, there are a lot of sources. Like Baroin and Laurent, Cazeneuve does not run for the election. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you point that he is leading the PS without having such an official post or even running for election.
There's no consensus here for adding Cazeneuve as party leader nor there's any source pointing him as such. You've violated the WP:3RR and are engaging in a similar edit war in the French wikipedia (and is not even consensus there for adding him in there). Impru20 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20 There are no consensus to remove Cazeneuve and if you remove him again, you will violate the 3RR. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for his addition, and you keep adding WP:OR in the article. And no, I'd have not violated WP:3RR even if I revert you because my first removal of your content in the text was not a revert. You already violated WP:3RR for the infobox. So, your next revert would consistute a double violation of WP:3RR and would, indeed, have to be reported. Impru20 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20 there is no consensus for removing. Now you have violated the 3RR. I could made an AN. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: you have reverted that edit after 4 days. --Panam2014 (talk)
Panam2014 Huh, and? There's not any rule saying that after 3 days pass, something automatically becomes consensus. Consensus requires discussion. I've filled a report on you for violating the 3RR twice. Have a nice day. Impru20 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: the truth is you have violated the 3RR and there are no consensus to remove that. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is now in discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard on Edit warring. Impru20 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed[edit]

I would like the opinion polling section to be split into separate page since in general i always split the opinion polls from election pages when i considered them pretty large, or anything else that is become a factor for me to split that section. However, for this time, i had to carry a consensus first before i split this section because i think this is will be a controversial one considering the fact that this one is not very large. If there is a support i'll do it, if not (or no consensus) i won't.--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 04:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- there's enough there that I think it would work better as a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but would ask that the split be made after polls up to and including Exit Polls for Round 2 on the 18th June are all included first. Wikimucker (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neutral   It is typical that this is a mere section in the larger narrative. See, for example United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected by user:Number 57. Upon exploration for a few sample countries, find a variety of approaches for national elections, and I was incorrect about the 2017 UK election, which maintains a separate article, while retaining information in the main article; the recent 2016 presidential election in the US splits off opinion polling. The Belgian Federal election for 2012 keeps the opinion polling in the main article. The German Federal Election of 2013 displays a polling chart in the main article, and has a separate opinion article.. The Irish general election 2016 has opinion polling charts, and a separate article. The Israeli legislative election, 2015 has only a link to a separate opinion article. The Canadian federal election, 2015 has opinion charts in the main article, and two separate opinion polling articles.
Yellowdesk (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Contrary to Yellowdesk's claim, it is standard practice for the opinion polling section to be split from the main article once it gets quite large. Keep the graph here though. Number 57 10:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

checkYDone. Got the consensus for support and i done that.--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 02:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note @ Mélencron that they restored some opinion polling data to the main article. While I am not averse to restoring First Round national opinion polls, only, as that table is pretty compact, I fail to see why seat projections are of any use after an election is already over and after @ SMB99thx sought consensus on full separation. Suggest dropping projections at a minimum and making First Round national opinion polls into a collapsible collapsed table. Wikimucker (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Detailed Results[edit]

In the Detailed Results section Manuel Valls is shown as outgoing PS in Essones and Eduard Phillipe is shown as outgoing in Seine Maritime. They are a former and current prime minister of France.

1. When an politician becomes prime minister they give up their seats in parliament, is this correct. ?

2. I understand an alternate candidate is somehow nominated for the seat and that a by election is not held, is this correct?

3. Does a politician resume their seat if they are no longer PM (thereby dismissing the alternate candidate) ?

4. Can Phillipe be an 'outgoing deputy' if he is currently PM and was an alternate appointed in his place when he became PM in May?


In which case maybe a note is required to explain this system (elsewhere most PMs retain their parliamentary seats) and how it applies to PMs as there are often 3 or 4 of these over the life of a French Legislature and one is incumbent at election time. Wikimucker (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four seats filled in the first round?[edit]

According to the table in the Results Summary section, there were four seats filled in the first round: two for REM, one for UDI and one for miscellaneous left. But there is no mention in the text of where these seats were or who was elected, and there is no citation. I can't find the answer on a Google or Google News search. Would it not be possible to add details and a citation? 95.44.50.222 (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found the answer and a source and added it myself. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worst graphs I have seen in a long time, completely unreadable, simplify it ffs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.155.192 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone understand the table?[edit]

I cannot make head or tail of this table with results for the second round. I have worked elections and results and it it does not make sense to me, how will it make any sense to the average reader? Some kind of explanation is required here. Thank you. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it tries to portray the different two or three-way runf-offs in the second round (i.e. 234 REN/LR run-offs, 40 MoDem/LR run-offs... and so on), though I am not sure. I agree that it should be explained a lot better. Impru20 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation above the table. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it still doesn't make sense. How is it possible that ECO or DLF didn't participate in any two-way contest but still got 1 seat each? An also, why separate the right and left coalitions by parties if the numbers are for the coalition as a whole? It needs a clean up. Togiad (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't known about ECO and DLF winning seats when I wrote that explanation. As indicated below, I was surprised to see DLF winning a seat when I thought they had missed participating in the 2nd round altogether. So I agree with you that there are some problems with that table. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was lifted from the French article. It looks like the detail in that was not fully accurate.Raellerby (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back[edit]

Lots of changes since I was last here, many of them good, many of them asinine, I'll take a look shortly and clean the article up a bit. Mélencron 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising DVD, DVG, DIV[edit]

It looks like people are just typing in the results direct from the Interior Ministry (which are fairly imprecise when listing small parties) and ignoring the minor parties some of those politicians represent, making it look like they've all left their old parties and run as independents. Could we either mark down their original parties as DVG/DVD/DIV or mark their current parties on the 2017 result column? Furthermore recent defectors like Lassalle are being shown with their new party on the table whilst other defectors are shown with their old one. It might be better to show the result in his constituency as Resistons gain from MoDem (rather than DVD gain from Resistons as currently). Maswimelleu (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debout la France[edit]

There must be an error in the table at French legislative election, 2017#Contests in the second round, because Debout la France isn't shown as competing in any 2nd round contests, yet they won a seat in the 2nd round (Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, in Essonne's 8th constituency). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do candidates self-identify as "far right" and "far left"?[edit]

I noticed that on the Ministry of the Interior web site, some candidates are labeled as "EXD" and "EXG" ("extrême droite"/far right and "extrême gauche"/far left), as they are in this article. (See http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/legislatives-2017/007/00701.html, for example.) Is this based on self-identification? I wouldn't expect a candidate to call themself far right or far left even if that would be an accurate characterization. Is EXD or EXG a government-chosen classification for these candidates? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nuances are determined by the Ministry of the Interior. Mélencron 13:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a process for adding constituency results for 2017 election to their respective pages?[edit]

Is there any semi-automated way for adding the constituency results for this election to their pages? (e.g. Finistère's 1st constituency)

The maker of http://opencouncildata.co.uk/ has created a bot that can crawl through various websites, find their results/membership pages, and automatically map that information into a spreadsheet. Theoretically the same would be possible in mapping data from a spreadsheet onto a Wikipedia page. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually got the results split into two sandboxes, FYI: User:Mélencron/sandbox10 and User:Mélencron/sandbox11, both of which were made by mapping results into a spreadsheet. (There's two issues, though, in that the second round vote totals use those for the first round due to a mistake on my part, and that it's not able to resolve candidate ties automatically, and simply lists duplicate entries, because the candidates aren't already sorted by number of votes in the public spreadsheet file but by their label.) Mélencron (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest it'd be helpful enough to have the first round done automatically and have to enter the second round manually - since it's the inclusion of lots of minor parties that becomes an onerous data entry job. If User:Newystats wants to join me then I'd be happy to use what you have an map them to all the respective constituency pages for reference. Would be good to ensure they're all correctly assigned to a master-list as we go so we can easily revisit them after by-elections and other changes. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Maswimelleu, I'm happy to help. Newystats (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The figures for the 2017 French legislative elections are available on data.gouv.fr. The main issue that I had was simply that I wasn't able to resolve ties between candidates as the data from each constituency isn't sorted by the number of votes, but that's probably fixable by using the panel parameter to display the results/names/parties separately for tied candidates. Also, it's important to note that (1) names aren't necessarily rendered correctly (missing an é or an ë or a hyphen and such from time to time), and that they need to be manually checked (helpfully, the French Wikipedia has well-maintained articles on the results by every department), and (2) some articles should probably be checked to be linked (if they're outgoing or elected deputies, or otherwise notable enough to have an article on either the French or English Wikipedias). Mélencron (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great - I'll get started as soon as I have the time. Maswimelleu (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing – I forgot that the results link doesn't actually link to the results in each constituency (e.g. https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Elections/Les-resultats/Legislatives/elecresult__legislatives-2017/(path)/legislatives-2017/077/07701.html); the first three digits are the department code and the last two are the constituency number. I've wanted to do this for quite a while now but I've never "had the time", either. I can take a look and see if I can fix the most obvious things (errors in second-round vote numbers, linking elected deputies, and providing direct results links) to make it easier to copy these over to their respective constituency pages, but don't think I can (easily) do anything about not being able to list multiple candidates with the same number of votes and the occasional "N/A" or misformatted table – the formulas are already excessively long/unwieldy to the point that I don't really understand them myself. Mélencron (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked out a fix for linking winning candidates and second-round vote totals. I'll see if I can also fix the URL issue next. Mélencron (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the URL issues. Hopefully I can update the two sandboxes by Wednesday the end of the week once I sanitize the tables. Mélencron (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll wait until then. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also 61(!) constituencies in the spreadsheet that seem to be missing data for at least 1 candidate, so I'll have to add those manually to the spreadsheet. Might take a little bit, but after that, only issues should be (1) fixing names/labels of tied candidates, (2) linking, and (3) correct candidate names. I'll take care of (1) after I've added the missing candidates. Mélencron (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed at least 30/61 – going to be off for a bit now but I'll come back to finish that up later. Mélencron (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any quick way to identify each constituency in your two sandboxes? I don't see a heading on any of them. Do they correspond to the order on the website you linked, alphabetical, etc? I don't really need you to add titles/annotations so long as I know what order they're in. Also, is there a page for every single National Assembly constituency already or do some need to be made from scratch? It appears I'll need to make some constituency articles from scratch too. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The constituencies are ordered as they are in the file that's published on data.gouv.fr, which is by department and constituency number (departments numbered 1 through 19, followed by 2A/2B for Corsica, then 21 through 95 for other departments in metropolitan France, then 971–974, 976, 988, 987, 975, 986, and 977 for the overseas departments, and then 99 for the 11 constituencies for French citizens overseas).

/sandbox11 contains the overseas departments and the 11 constituencies for French nationals established outside of France; they're split into two because of Wikipedia's page size limits. Mélencron (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll get started on this today unless there's anything else you want to do first. I've created a sort of to-do list on User:Maswimelleu/sandbox2 so I can check each article individually and gradually get them all up to a reasonable minimum standard (not planning to do 2012/2007 just yet, but might as well note which ones do and don't have it). Maswimelleu (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually done with fixing the names, FYI. I have a couple hours right now to continue and I might be able to finish fixing the sandbox by the end of today. What standard do you wish to get the articles up to? Ideally I'd like to get them all up to the level of Ain's 1st constituency, but that can't be done quickly. There isn't an existing set of SVG locator maps for constituencies and there aren't any official sources out there which provide a comprehensive history of each constituency's historic representation. There's one book compiled by Pierre Avril, but it only goes up to 1988; there's also another site, politiquemania, that has the data up until 2012, but even then that's (as far as I know) volunteer-compiled. Mélencron (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ain's 1st is roughly the standard I'm hoping for. I'm going to record which ones are missing a graphic so I can reference it in future - in the absence of the constituency being highlighted I think at least highlighting the département would be good. I think representation going back to 1988 (when single member constituencies were restored?) would be a realistic goal if we have access to Pierre Avril's book. My reasoning is that if I'm manually inspecting each article, I might as well record the progress towards completion on each - some I will never have to revisit, whereas others will need a lot more work. I'm in no real rush to start, so just let me know whenever you're ready to proceed. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maswimelleu & Mélencron. Let me know if I can help. I've manually done the last in the list in metropolitan France Val-d'Oise's 10th constituency with the 2017 result, updating the infobox and adding a "It is currently represented by " sentence in the top section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newystats (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what I can do as for maps and such in the coming weeks. It's probably easiest just to add the results tables for 2017 to the articles first and clean up the rest after that part's done. Mélencron (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent de Boissieu/france-politique.fr[edit]

http://www.revuepolitique.fr/plaidoyer-pour-la-rationalisation-de-loffre-electorale/ Mélencron (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Front color[edit]

There is currently a push for replacing dark blue with grey for the National Front. A discussion has been started on the template page after I asked. Everyone is welcome to give their opinion there as well. Template talk:National Front (France)/meta/color--Aréat (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Short Code for Génération.s?[edit]

What is the code to put in the infobox at party-colour for Génération.s? Newystats (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solved - this is a note for anyone else looking. Code is gens - you can see all the codes by editing Template:French politics/party colours Newystats (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plural or singular?[edit]

Further information: Talk:2022 French legislative election § Plural or singular?

Hérisson grognon (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_French_legislative_election&oldid=1196732930"