Politics

Mayoral Elections

Our local elections are now done and dusted and I have at last found out exactly how they work (and at least one version of how proportional representation works).

On the first round of voting a week ago, The list with which I had been asked to help came first with 38% of the vote, the others having around 30%, 20% and 8%. Horse trading between the 2^nd and 3^rd didn't work so the bottom two lists dropped out. That left the first two in a head-to-head for the second round of voting. I didn't realise there was any right/left wing aspect to the lists but Le Monde in its national coverage had the first list classified as left-wing, the second and third as right-wing and the third as unknown or independent. So it looked as though the overall apparently majority right-wing vote might swing the head-to-head in favour of the second list. In fact, the opposite happened and the first list got in with 60% of the vote. So it would appear that most voters were not voting along political lines but were voting for individuals on the lists irrespective of their supposed political allegiance.

This is how it works after that. Since the first list has to have a majority on the new council, it automatically gets 8 of the 15 new councillors. Then since it got 60% of the vote, it also gets 60% of the remaining seven seats. Since 60% doesn't go exactly into 7 and since fractions of councillors aren't allowed (one is left to wonder, if fractions were allowed, if the head would be included in any parts selected – maybe just the spleen) the first list gets 4 more seats on the council and the remainder go to the runner-up. So that is the composition of our new council.

Press headlines were made by the success of the extreme right-wing National Front over the nation as a whole. The NF claimed that their success proved they were not simply recipients of a protest vote but were being accepted as a mainstream political party. I couldn't agree with that analysis. Extremist parties will pick up majority votes in areas where there is a great deal of social unrest in minor elections, even sometimes in major elections. However, it was obvious that parties politically opposed had combined in several cases to keep out NF candidates. This is sure to happen again in major elections and perhaps to an even greater extent. In populous areas, voting was clearly political, in less populous areas much less so. This would seem natural and, indeed, perhaps as it should be.

Who's responsible?

I recently bought a rose bush to go in my back garden and noticed that there was a sign on the packaging warning that the bush was not to be eaten. Now I can honestly say that I've never seen a rose bush on a menu anywhere (and I've been in some 60 countries throughout the world) so I presume that the vast majority of people must already know that rose bushes are not to be eaten. However, I suppose that ever since some woman successfully prosecuted MacDonalds because, when she tipped a cup of their coffee over herself, it burned her, there must be some people who don't know that hot liquid can burn. So I suppose the notice on my rose bush packaging is justified. Should anyone eat a rose bush and get a thorn stuck in their throat, they won't be able to sue the supplier; they were warned.