Marine Le Pen Concedes Election to Winner Macron

France dodged a right-wing bullet by electing Emmanuel Macron. Marine Le Pen has conceded the race.

I heard earlier on the car radio that French turnout was high -- 77% or so. That may be considered high when compared to the U.S. which has hovered around 55%. But reports are that the French turnout was around 75%, lower than the past two French elections. Then again, this report has French turnout in 2012 at 71%. (Belgium had an 87.2 percent turnout rate in 2014, Turkey's was 84.3 percent in 2015, and Sweden's was 82.5 percent in 2014.)

Regardless, it was not a close race. Marcron won 65.% to Le Pen's 35%.

Lucky for France they don't have an electoral college.

< Family Trump to Take a World Trip | Trump Nominates 10 Conservatives For Federal Court Judgeships >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not only no electoral college, but presumably ... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Erehwon on Sun May 07, 2017 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    a better educated populace who knew what the alternative would entail!

    Several of our friends drove (none / 0) (#2)
    by me only on Sun May 07, 2017 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    3 hours one way, to vote against Le Pen.

    Why did they (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 07, 2017 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    have to drive so far to vote? I'm not familiar with how voting works in France obviously.

    They are French citizens (none / 0) (#8)
    by me only on Mon May 08, 2017 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    living in the US.  They had to present photo id (the horror!!!) and go to one of the 30 or so polling locations in the US (in addition to the embassy and consulates, several other major cities had polling stations).  We don't live in one of those cities so they had to drive to one.

    Okay. I had (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    thought they might be in France and had to drive that far for some reason.

    very low voter turnout (none / 0) (#4)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 08:40:12 PM EST

    "Ni Macron, Ni Le Pen" : la manifestation dégénère

    A Lyon, environ 700 personnes, selon nos estimations, essentiellement des jeunes Mélenchonistes, se sont rassemblées, jeudi soir, place des Terreaux pour affirmer leur refus de voter pour les deux candidats au deuxième tour de la présidentielle. Une manifestation qui s'est terminée dans les gaz lacrymogènes...

    i'll let donald from hawaii translate as im not fluent in french and i'll just get criticized by the usual grumpy people. essentially, the article is about young adults refusing to vote for either candidate and the demonstration ending in tear gas. but really, 65 to 35 is running riot and not one of these young adults would have voted national front.

    "Not Macron, Not Le Pen": (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 02:36:21 AM EST
    "According to estimates, about 700 Mélenchonistes" -- that is, supporters of former leftist presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who failed to make the cut in the first round of voting two weeks ago -- "gathered in Lyon's Terreaux Square to affirm their refusal to vote for either of two candidates in the second round of the presidential election. [It was a] demonstration that ended in tear gas ..."

    We Don't Have the Founders' Electoral College (none / 0) (#6)
    by RickyJim on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    The original idea was to have the populace vote for the uncomitted people in their districts whom they best trusted to make the choice of president.  Then, after these electors loooked over the field, they would vote in December for whom they thought would be the best president.  The reason the US often gets stuck with a crummy choice in the Nov election is that the field is basicly whittled down to two by the Republican and Democratic political parties.  

    French voters had a choice between a dozen candidates (IIRC) in the original vote on April 23. To become a candidate you have to be nominated by at least 500 mayors of French cities, so in spirit, they have a filtering process like the US founding fathers thought should be in place to prevent a demagogue, with only skills as an entertainer, from getting in.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    no, that did not work because LePen made the ballot. The voters are the ones that kicked LePen to the curb. Here we have a bunch of people that thought it would be "fun" to blow up the country by voting for someone who has no experience.

    LePen Is Not A Demagogue (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Mon May 08, 2017 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    She is knowledgable in government matters and not an entertainer.  Her sin is being too right wing rather than unqualified.  Why don't you consider if Trump would have been among the dozen of so nominees if we had a system similar to the French one?  And even if he were, could you imagine him being among the two finalists for the runoff?  Our problem is the absurd, self perpetuating power of the two main political parties.

    Trump's (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    problems lie with the voters. The GOP could have gotten rid of him at the convention but they chose not to. I'm tired of the two parties argument. Third parties don't work in our current system and instead of foolishly running for president they should pay attention to smaller races which they do not. And the parties in Europe laugh at their counterparts here in the US like the Green Party because they're not even serious political parties.

    A bit like Trump (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 09, 2017 at 08:37:17 AM EST
    The French elected someone that has never held political office before. The established parties were shut out of the final round.

    Both French candidates like Trump represent a rejection of the establishment.   Le Pen did best among the young whose unemployment rate is very high.

    Which brings to mind stats I saw the other day regarding Hillary's (the establishment candidate) loss.

    GDP annual growth average in the last six years if each presidency:

    Reagan: 4.5%
    Clinton: 3.9%
    Bush: 2%
    Obama: 1%

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 09, 2017 at 08:47:47 AM EST
    Talk about spinning and apologia. You have to take the whole term and can't just cherry pick what you want.

    Look at this

    Obama did lag behind but Clinton beat the starch out of Reagan but you just can't admit that can you? The truth is Reagan was pretty lousy for the economy and his administration was saying that 7% UE was "normal". He attempted to normalize high unemployment instead of you know actually doing something about it.


    Are you blind? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 09, 2017 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    No. Are you? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Tue May 09, 2017 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    From the same link.

    There's a reason you wingers try to cherry-pick an arbitrary period (last 6 years) then backtrack to another arbitrary period (a single year) when you get called on it.

    You really think you're not completely transparent?