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

[Hash]

1997

[Antonio the Sixth]

1978

[Hans-im-Glück]

1997

[Edu]

I'm not Boycotting this, i must have missed that i didn't vote here

1997

[big bad fab]

1997

Thank you for your impartiality, Hans and Edu.
No offence, Antonio. Your vote is logical.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would have loved to see a tie in this round just to piss you off by eliminating 1997. Anyways, I doubt there has been any vote which wasn't impartial during this round, if that even means something.

1997 is out ! Cheers !!!

Normal elimination for last round too.

[Hash]

eliminate 1986

[Hans-im-Glück]

Eliminate 1978

1986 for the win

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fellow voters,
It would be a real shame if 1978 were the survivor. It's certainly an election that by some aspects (the left's surprise loss and the major recomposition of the political spectrum) is somewhat interesting. But by no way it deserves the title of legislative elections survivor. Without any major political consequence, the election let the political situation identical to what it was before. The 1978-1981 parliament was also a pretty boring moment of political history. Nothing in common with 1986 : being the only election using proportional election, it occasioned a pretty suspenseful campaign about whether ther would be a majority in the future parliament. Its results led to the first cohabitation, having thus major consequences on the nature of the French political regime for two decades. Finally, the 86-88 period was extremely passionating with an epic Mitterrand-Chirac conflict.
Please put those two elections on balance and make the right choice.


Eliminate 1978

1986 for survivor

[big bad fab]

1978 ftw !

It's really difficult, but 1978 was the most suspenseful. And it epitomizes the quadripartism of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s.
And it led to the first theorization of cohabitation by VGE (Verdun-sur-le-Doubs speech).

And Rocard almost cried on TV after this bad surprise for the left... And you know I'm emotive and ex-Rocardien...

I would be glad with any winner, though, as this is the right final.
And to add to Antonio's reasons, let's add that (bad) one

And now, Edu is in its favourite position: deciding the survivor... !
(hopefully, no extra-voter will trouble our lil' committee)

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Edu is the kingmaker... Well, that's a funny finale !

[Edu]

What an honor

Eliminate 1978
1986 for survivor

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey, good things happen sometimes !

1978 is out

and...

[Antonio the Sixth]

1986 is the survivor !

[Antonio the Sixth]

First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for taking part in this survivor, which was never one of the "big ones" but still had its interests. However, I can't help feeling disturbed by how it has turned in last rounds. I still think I've done my best to make the survivor diverse and somewhat original, but I've made a big mistake on round 11 that caused some tensions in the late period, and ruined the ambiance of our last rounds. I feel sorry it has turned that way.

Now, this is not the first survivor I have done. After starting with a "modest" one about french PS leaders which was very quiet all the time, I ran a pretty thrilling and interesting one with US elections. I'm quite satisfied of both, but of course I'm not the right one to judge.

Recently, I've told Fab that I planned to start a new survivor in next months. It will be a bigger one, and I expect it to gather more people and last for a longer time. But sincerely, I don't want to start a survivor if I'm not able to run it properly. Until recently I thought I had no problem with that, but what happened here made me somewhat doubtful. I'm not Libertas, and I don't want to stubborly spoil good ideas with a new chaotic survivors every day. So if you, who have always been my most "loyal" voters, think the survivor would be better run by someone else, I will have no problem letting him run it. That's what I'd like to ask you now : is it worthwhile ? Please be honest.

[Edu]

First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for taking part in this survivor, which was never one of the "big ones" but still had its interests. However, I can't help feeling disturbed by how it has turned in last rounds. I still think I've done my best to make the survivor diverse and somewhat original, but I've made a big mistake on round 11 that caused some tensions in the late period, and ruined the ambiance of our last rounds. I feel sorry it has turned that way.

Now, this is not the first survivor I have done. After starting with a "modest" one about french PS leaders which was very quiet all the time, I ran a pretty thrilling and interesting one with US elections. I'm quite satisfied of both, but of course I'm not the right one to judge.

Recently, I've told Fab that I planned to start a new survivor in next months. It will be a bigger one, and I expect it to gather more people and last for a longer time. But sincerely, I don't want to start a survivor if I'm not able to run it properly. Until recently I thought I had no problem with that, but what happened here made me somewhat doubtful. I'm not Libertas, and I don't want to stubborly spoil good ideas with a new chaotic survivors every day. So if you, who have always been my most "loyal" voters, think the survivor would be better run by someone else, I will have no problem letting him run it. That's what I'd like to ask you now : is it worthwhile ? Please be honest.

I think you are a pretty good manager Antonio , you usually use interesting rules to vote for survivors and i enjoyed the US presidential elections one. As far as i can tell the problem with this survivor was that 1997 got immunity and while it was still immune...It got Immunity again. Apart from that, you have done a great job, patiently waiting for all the lazy regulars like myself to get to vote . And you shouldn't compare yourself to Libertas who regularly bends the rules to allow his favorites to survive.
I can say that i will be voting in whatever else you have in mind so i think you should go ahead with whatever survivor you are planning (just don't let an already immune option to have immunity again and all will be fine )

[big bad fab]

As soon as you PMed me, I've added your new idea in the list of "taken out options in new ideas".
You should do it: it'll be interesting, for sure.

Of course, there will be partisan hacking, but, as it's a European one, maybe less so.
And as the "old" survivormaniacs (including new ones like homelycooking) know each other quite well now and are numerous enough, this bias should be sidelined (whatever side it comes from: Sewer or jfern on one side, Libertas or feeblepizza on the other).

And, don't worry, I won't protest, as I know part of the result before the end, so I'm already accustomed to the idea that my favourites will lose ...
Because, as a European game, we'll avoid stupid votes from Sewer or Libertas, but more articulate votes will be hugely on one side (if Lewis, Al, Gully, Kal or other vote ).

As for this French legislative elections survivor, I enjoyed the final round (which was "right" if this word may apply to survivors) after having feared the suspense would be killed (well, I repeat myself, but an immunity that lasts for half a survivor, it's really too much... I even think immunity isn't a good thing, generally speaking, I've re-used it in some rounds of my Ancient France's provinces survivor, but not in the last third and not for a long time... And I don't plan to use it again, as it's always a bit frustrating).

I'm sorry, but I haven't protested out of political matters (it's a game without ANY consequence; and you know that, in the French political parties survivor, PS was one of my favourites, if not the first one, over UMP).
Just that, with 1968 out in the first round, it was historically a bit irritating. And, of course, I'm more easily irritated on French than on other survivors.
And I suspect that if I haven't spoken out loud, our Hash would have done it, so, it's cool that only one screamed .

So, let's start your new one, just be a little more careful about immunities .
And if it's really long (I know your idea, but not its "wideness" ), don't despair if turnout isn't that good after 10 rounds or something ! In a way, it's even better.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks a lot for your kind words, sometimes I can be pretty tenderhearted when I realize that I did something wrong. Anyways, it's time to move on ! You'll have to wait for one month or so, because I have to read through some wikipedia articles in order to collect informations about the partisan system of some countries - and because I'm also busy with other things, like Uni and... midterm elections. I can promise you this survivor will be the best I've ever done.

As for immunities, I won't renounce to them because I personally find they bring some interest to the game. They are likely to last for 4 rounds, but the difference will be that I'll let one round between one immunity and the next one, so that there won't be any "interest conflict". I might also prohibit to vote for the previous immune thing in the next immunity vote.