Nobody expected this. High drama, for sure, but this was a shock.
When the graphics flashed up on all the big French channels, it was not the far right of Marine Le Pen and her young prime minister-in-waiting Jordan Bardella who were on course for victory.
It was the left who had clinched it, and Emmanuel Macron’s centrists - the Ensemble alliance - had staged an unexpected comeback, pushing the far-right National Rally (RN) into third.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the veteran left-wing firebrand seen by his critics as an extremist, wasted no time in proclaiming victory.
“The president must call on the New Popular Front to govern,” he told supporters in Stalingrad square, insisting Mr Macron had to recognise that he and his coalition had lost.
His alliance, drawn up in a hurry for President Macron’s surprise election, includes his own radical France Unbowed, along with Greens, Socialists and Communists and even Trotskyists.
Respectfully, we do and have always had a balance of power that was framed nearly perfectly in the Constitution with executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Vote-wise have a rare balance of power with a Democrat in the executive branch, a 50/50 Congress and an originalist ( that leans conservative) Supreme Court.
The goal of free elections is never to vote for balance; it’s to vote (if you are a legal citizen) for representation per the will of the people. The checks and balances are all over the place.
What happens next will be interesting. Melenchon is trying to force Macron to make one of the hard left the new prime minister. But in truth, Melenchon’s hard left were only part of the left leaning alliance - so not necessarily right for PM role. It even possible the centre left and greens in the populist front alliance slip towards Macron’s party. This was vote against Le Pen rather than a vote for one party.
and to have representation for all, there must be a balance of power, a leaning of balance in either direction sways the power in either direction. You will never equality for all without a balance of power.
Are you talking about voting or the framework of government?
There IS representation for all and there is a balance of power in the framework,. If you are talking about voting, your premise is absurd. Why vote? Why not just assign people to Congress right down the middle and have the president take turns every voting cycle? Because the voting citizenry is never 50/50 by number on anything, your premise of balance of power really would be a failure of representation.
When it comes to voting and representation, constitutional republic is based on the will of the people, protected by the rule of law based on the Constitution not the balance of power - majority rule, minority rights. You do understand that equality is based in the law and voting is based on the will of the voter?
Do you pay attention to the polls and vote for the minority party so there will be a balance of power? I sure as sunshine do not. Do I want minority rights protected? Absolutely.
No , if you have too much conservative, your legislation leans to the conservative, and the same with liberalism, of course you will never have “an exact balance” but enough of every side to have input, so no, it is not absurd, and hopefully your candidates are moderate, as the world seems to be leaning towards extremist ideology, and legislation will dictate rights, because interpretation of the constitution largely depends on what side of the isle you stand.
You don’t get to dictate the outcome of legislation and elections, and neither do I. If the majority wants to pass legislation that leans politically one direction or the other, then that is the will of the people! You do know that if you are a centrist, that too is a political leaning?
If the country looks at Congressionally passed law as untenable or illegal, then there are opportunities for checks, balances, and corrections all over the place. That is the genius or our framework of government.
Legislative corrections come via veto power, challenged via the judicial branch, or representatives can be voted out of office. ALL of those checks and balances are alive and well.
What is it exactly that you think is unfair or inequitable about our system of government? I still don’t see it.
Your correct, but whatever side has a decidedly larger amount of delegates dictates policy, prove me wrong. We’ve been fighting that battle for years here in the States.
then extreme ideology rules, and we’ve had naught but extremist leaders since 2016. Extremist ideology specials doom for any Democracy, because it works not for the good of the country but for the good of their following. Abolishment of Rights, censorship/ banning of books, and the biggest (and most important to a Democracy) separation of church and state, which the extreme right has always fought, and do not get me wrong, the extreme Left is just as guilty with the ALT Left, we need to get back to a government that works for all, and at this point, neither the GOP or the Democrats serve that point.
Presuming you are meaning members of Congress (delegates have a whole different meaning), then that is correct and the way the system was designed. In fact, one of the most grueling problems the framers faced was how to ensure that Congress properly represented the will populace (two vote per state in the Senate, and population representation by state in the House). The actions of Congress should represent the majority will of the people of the states, and that is most often partisan. All bills have to work their way through committees that have representation by both political parties. Some, but few bills are bipartisan. Should all bills be bipartisan? Not according to voters.
For 2 terms we have had no responsible leadership in the WH, both Trump and Biden should be in an institution, and unfortunately most every one who has stepped forward fits the same bill, it does not look good for the US.
Baloney. There is no book banning for adults in the U.S. and there is no “Abolishment of Rights,” whatever that is.
Separation of church and state is sometimes challenged (usually on the state level) in the courts. What is bugging you about that? However, ethics (which some argue has religious tenets) in government is inseparable, which is where so many challenges lie.
How does the government not work for everyone? By not getting their way? There are always extremists who will challenge the status quo, but there is always an option for commiserate correction. For example, in the New York Democrat primary for the House a couple of weeks ago, extremist incumbent (and foul-mouthed) Bowman was outed in favor of more centrist Latimer.
On this, we mostly agree. I don’t like Trump or Biden and think we can do infinitely better. I am voting for Trump because of the political hijacking of the judicial system for which he was incorrectly brought to trial. The Biden administration has been a disaster (don’t get me started on Afghanistan), and I say “administration” because I don’t think he has been in control since his inauguration.
I do not think either should be in an institution, though I think we are very close to needing to invoke the 25th amendment.
.