French Legislative elections (post 1945) Survivor - 1986 is the survivor !

[big bad fab]

1973
Very uninteresting elections.

(1962 had an importance after the opposition of many centrists towards de Gaulle)

[big bad fab]

All this begins very badly...

1968 were interesting and important election, in their principle itself.

This was the victory of Pompidou over de Gaulle, who initially wanted a referendum.
The raw result may seem uninteresting, but was a surprise for the gaullists themselves.
Pompidou (and Balladur and Chirac) and, on the other side, the CGT trade union and the communists more globally, negotiated the end of May-June 68 and were the 2 sides of the same aim: order. And they all wanted to kill de Gaulle in a way...
De Gaulle eventually didn't take Pompidou as PM again as he knew he was now a rival...

And 1968 were the first dissolution of the Assembly BY CHOICE (1962 was a constitutionally forced one).

Its really a pity 1968 is already out. It should have been in the first half, at least.
I hope you've got other reasons than following Xahar's basic and short-sighted (to be kind) anti-gaullism .

Well, 2002 and 2007 were far less interesting and historical than 1968...
Or, if you want big rightist elections, 1993, which was predictable since 1991.

In this disappointing beginning, I have at least one reason to smile: Hash and me keep on mostly agreeing with each other on the relative interest of French elections (referendums, presidential, general), whatever their result.

Anyway,

1973

2007

for this round (2002 and 2007 were just elections that give logical powers to the new president, so no surprise at all, with 2002 a bit more interesting locally)

[big bad fab]

1968 wasn't an important election, just the right way to conclude a crisis that was already over. While the dissolution was theoretically chosen, it was a direct consequence of external events. If you're looking for a really chosen dissolution, then the only correct example is 1997. Also, this "anti-chienlit" reflex vote masked the real political trends of the country and the new parliament (which lasted for 5 years) wasn't at all representative of the country's aspirations.

Nope. Maybe you'll learn it in your 1st year rue St-Guillaume, but it wasn't at all an obvious choice.

As for the real trends of a country, well, such a democratic vote should give them clearly. And read again education projects of Edgar Faure and Peyrefitte and you'll see that "social reform" was already at work.
And the real trends of France have always been hard to see: remember Pétain in Paris in 1944...

Anyway, I really think some of our regular survivormaniacs think that such is a result in 1968 automatically means a boring election. That's just not the case.

As for 4th Republic elections, Xahar is again wrong: "Third Force", poujadism, mendesism, amazing failure of the RPF, shenanigans in the "republican front", complexity of "the rally of republican lefts": 1951 and 1956 were really very interesting.

[big bad fab]

Eliminate 2007
Keep 1978 (just in case...)

[big bad fab]

4 to 2007
2 to 1993
1 to 1981

[big bad fab]

8 to 2007
(even if there was a little swing between the 2 rounds, this was just the aftermath of the presidential result: legislative elections are now less interesting and important)

And it's now really difficult... until the end of this survivor, it will be !

4 to 1981
(the first example of dissolution after presidential election, but not a very interesting result with a majority for the PS alone, without the PCF)

2 to 1946 (November)
(well, of course, the new Assembly was a 5-year one and it may be considered as more important than June 1946, but the results were almost the same as in June and, in June, it had had a veryn important consequence on the new constitution)

1 to 1958
(of course, gaulllists didn't have the majority alone, but it wasn't a very suspenseful election...)

[big bad fab]

5 to 1981

4 to 1946 (Nov)

1 to 1958

[big bad fab]

6 to eliminate 1981

4 to immunize 1978

(a fascinating and suspenseful one, with an anticipated victory of the left, which eventually didn't occur, with the famous and very important Giscard's speech of Verdun-sur-le-Doubs, having already prepared for a cohabitation, and with Rocard almost in tears on TV after the defeat...
Rocard would probably have been PM of Giscard ! Even though Mitterrand may have won anyway in 1981, or Giscard would have defeated a Rocard become unpopular, like Mitterrand killed Chirac in 1988)

[big bad fab]

It's because 1967 was quite surprising in an almost-defeated gaullist movement.
It was the real end for de Gaulle: even the "loyal" supporters weren't so sure that he had to be kept...

That's why 1968 was also so important an election:
de Gaulle lost in 1967 (his disappointment of 1965, plus his policy focused only on foreign matters from 1966: he wasn't the same any longer and lost his vista)
but Pompidou won in 1968.

[big bad fab]

5 to 1946 (November)
4 to 1945
3 to 1946 (June)
2 to 1967
1 to 1988

I hope immunity isn't too long: 3 rounds ?

[big bad fab]

Your jospinomania is a tad too deep, ya know

Not in the top 5, just a step lower:
In fact, if you see my vote and if I think a bit, 1997 should be in sixth position (and seventh, "really", with 1968 included again...).

Sorry, but I put 1988 slightly ahead, as it resulted in almost a hung parliament and led to a very interesting relation between Rocard and the centrist group and between Mitterrand and many "unaffiliated" guys... A very interesting election, with a great importance for overseas territories.

[big bad fab]

The "dissolution ratéee", a PS comback only 4 year after the most epic debacle in its history, the longest cohabitation ever ? But of course the only reason I support it is because I'm a Jospinmaniac...

No, that was not my point.
It's just that you wrote: "you can't deny it a place in the top 5 and pretend to be objective".
That's why I answered that your Jospinomania may be a bit excessive.

I agree with you, 1997 is interesting, also because the FN had then his biggest result: being able to kill the right (2002 wasn't the best success of Le Pen in fact).
And because 1997 has killed forever the idea of "convenience dissolution" in France (UK and Australia, learn !).

But 1978 was the most suspenseful, 1951 and 1956 each opened a new "sub-era" inside the Fourth Republic, 1986 was the only proportional one of the Fifth Republic (and was more suspenseful than anticipated) and 1988, I've already said what I think.
Please note that this list isn't in the "right" order

[big bad fab]

Sure, but I was talking ina majority system with 2 rounds. Here, when you don't vote for the enemy, it's already something of a victory.

[big bad fab]

June 1946

[big bad fab]

2 for June 1946
1 for 1945

[big bad fab]

Eliminate:
4 for 1945
1 for 1988

Keep:
3 for 1978
1 for 1986
1 for 1962

[big bad fab]

I hope immunity isn't too long: 3 rounds ?

4. You will be able to vote 1997 out on round 12.

Antonio, "we have a problem here":
you can't vote to keep 1997 whereas it is still immune.

[big bad fab]

Either your vote is useless as it is immune and can't be ousted.
Or you are giving 1997 positive votes for the future and that's not normal (except if, in case of a tie, you don't count those votes).

Immunity (which I used again in Ancient France's Provinces but won't use again) is giving a double advantage when we break ties with previous votes, as an immunized name can't receive negative votes.

Anyway, I don't change my vote, as I think it should be up to you to change your vote .

[big bad fab]

So just because I invented a stupid rule I shouldn't be able to vote for the election I want to immunize ?

Do you want me to modify the rules and re-organize the round ? BTW, some suggestion for an alternative rule would be nice.

Oh no, let's move on.
There would be a problem only if there is a tie between 1997 and another election in future rounds.
You'll see then what to do (a play-off or something else).
Voters are pretty "busy" with all the new survivors... I don't feel a strong demand to re-run the round .

[big bad fab]

3 for 1945
2 for 1951
1 for 1956

[big bad fab]

5 for 1945
3 for 1956

[big bad fab]

12 for 1945

[big bad fab]

You already know I disagree.
1997 should be sixth or something, not more.
1945 is a non surprising election, though a historically important.
1951 and 1956 were full of diversity, shenanigans, complex alliances and so on: more fascinating.
And, of course, 1968 is a very important election, not by its result, but by its timing and political meaning, inside and outside Gaullist power.

[big bad fab]

Guys, if it's not a 1978-1986 finale, I can become violent !

[big bad fab]

This rule is outrageous at this moment: this is again a very, very big advantage for 1997, which can receive absolutely no negative vote, while 1978 and 1986 are gathering.

Adding immunity and split votes and in the final top 5, it's really too much, Antonio...