American/French partisan affiliation

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I personally think that the guy Sarkozy has the psychology of an American Republican, but as he remains president of France, he can't do what he wants, and Hashemite well pointed out how a lot of point are non-issues here as much as they are so integrated in the French psychology. Add to this that Sarkozy was far more pleased with Bush than with Obama.

Actually, I also think that French and American policy tend to be out of comparison. France remains a very particular state, and to qualify it I think that the best adjective is "gaulliste" (reference to De Gaulle), a gaullist state.

France tried the adventure of Sarkozy, that consisted to stop the more or less economical statu-quo and the hypocrisy toward global economy and US, but I think it won't last, the fact that he seems more interested by the fame of his results than by some actual results would help in it.

That said, I disagree with Hashemite on the fact that France isn't a two-parties-state. Our parliament forces our country to only be a two-parties-state.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

IMO Mint well got the separation between Sarkozy and the US right.

But once again, to really get France, I think we have to consider the fact it built itself from time now like an universal model, such as US built themselves.

And so, this universal model have things we can't really touch, what we call the "modèle républicain" (literally translate to: "republican model"), our strong secularity, an enough state-directed economy, a very strong egalitarian culture.

In that way I call France a gaullist state because that's De Gaulle when France was more down than ever who permit the continuation of this History that gave us all these principles. First just after WW2 by avoiding a civil war with communists (and to be honest communist leaders helped to avoid that war), and by his come back when the 4th republic was seriously swinging during the war of Algeria.

Since he called from England the French to stand up against occupation, he has been in charge of giving back its dignity to France, and of the continuity of its History and so of the universal model France wanted to be. And if I think French used to miss of gratitude toward Allies, I also like the fact that France can represent an other kind of voice in the West.

So, De Gaulle made the 5th republic and by this gave a strong base to France to ensure this continuity of the heritage of this universal model based on the principles I've cited above.

That's why France and US are hard to compare, we compare two basically different models on some points, each one with universalistic claims.

That said, if I like we can represent an other kind of voice in the West, I think we have to seriously evolute to something else (for French guys here, I don't share all judgments of Eric Zemmour, a famous French political journalist, one of quality, but if I agree on most of his analyses of the current world, the hell, his solutions are cool for the 19th century!). That said, personally, I no more think in the squares of the current nations when I think to evolutions...

That said, I disagree with Hashemite on the fact that France isn't a two-parties-state. Our parliament forces our country to only be a two-parties-state.

No.

It is undeniable that there is rising polarization in France since the right united in a common party and the PS started killing off the Communist Party. But I believe the EU elections will indicate that smaller parties remain strong. But anyways, polarization ≠ two-party system.

Spain, the United States, Ghana, Australia, Jamaica are all two-party systems. France is nowhere near those countries.

Well, if you mean that a polarization is 2 major parties that monopolize the debates, when the other ones are presents in debates, in others elections, but quasi non-represented, well, I agree, we're just polarized.

What would be the difference with a two party system? I mean, in terms of representation, of people elected? Outside of the alliances that make that some NC, MPF, or PCF, are present in the assembly I don't see. Because even if they are presents they haven't some cards in the hand, the major parties manage it to keep them in their hands.

The only differences I would see are for locals.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...except that. I didn't hear a lot of Zemmour, but the few I heard was enough to definitively disgust me. A man who says that races exist can't not to be an idiot.

My bad, I introduced Zemmour here where it's not exactly the place to debate about him. So:

[about Eric Zemmour]
Well, as I said I agree with most of his analyses. I heard him speaking about races, I think it's one of the time he's been stupid, and I wouldn't totally follow him on the racial question, in that sens that the guy see that question as something which can't evolute, blacks will always run the faster, whites will always be more intellectual, white civilizations have only to give to others ones and not to take, stuffs like that, that's anyway how I tend to get his message on races, and I don't go in his sens, at all. Actually I think the guy is relevant on a lot of points but he remains damn stupid on some ones. Sometimes I tend to think he just does that to provoke.
[/about Eric Zemmour]

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Stop defining two-party systems in terms of numbers of seats in legislatures and electoral systems. The French electoral system favours big parties and leads to fewer and fewer minor parties represented. However, the number of seats in the legislature doesn't mean that France is a two-party system, far from it. If we were a two-party system, the first and second place parties in the EU elections would both poll over 40% (see the Spanish EU elections in 2004) or at the very least in the high 30s. The PS didn't even win 30% of the vote in its 2004 landslide.

Two-party systems are not defined on the sole basis of the representation of parties in national legislatures. Other factors must be taken into consideration, or else you're ing up the definition.

So, apparently it misses a clear definition of both polarization and 2-party system.

What would be the other things to take in count? That could be what I already said here:

Well, if you mean that a polarization is 2 major parties that monopolize the debates, when the other ones are presents in debates, in others elections, but quasi non-represented, well, I agree, we're just polarized.

Or am I missing something?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

What would be the other things to take in count? That could be what I already said here:

All electoral results.

But... any criteria?

We can't make a definition without criteria.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

What would be the other things to take in count? That could be what I already said here:

All electoral results.

But... any criteria?

We can't make a definition without criteria.

Read my post. We need to take into account all electoral results. Two parties need to clearly dominate the popular vote (PV is the real story, obviously) with minor parties taking at most 5%, maybe 10% all together.

Oh, OK, here that's more clear. I could endorse that definition I think.