Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mélencron (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 5 November 2018 (→Incompleteness: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

France List‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

--142.165.117.74 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)== New classification introduced ==

Untitled

I've established minor parties section (as corresponding fr.wiki article has); the obvious reason for this move is that considering the plentitude of 'very minor' parties (Nouvelle Action Royaliste) in wikipedia, the table could become full after adding links to these minor ones. (some parties marked as 'minor' before, such as Mouvement pour la France, Rassemblement pour la France etc have their MPs and considerable influence, which Rassemblement démocrate and some communist groupings do not possess. These should have a special section now.) --Constanz - Talk 15:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've kept all 4 green parties in the main parties section; it's unclear which of these have no remarkable influence. I've retained remarks 'minor' in the table as well; the term is relative and remains useful.--Constanz - Talk 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved 3 of them to minor section. On Les Verts is relevant nowadays. David.Monniaux 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Ã

UPDATE NEEDED Obvioussluy an update will be needed after the elections this month giving distribution of seats and changing descriptions of the link between right-wing and government-supporting parties if the left wins.

Major & Minor parties

There probably needs to be a re-evaluation of major and minor parties. France is moving closer towards a 'two-party' system.

Legislative elections

1997 - RPR (15.7) + PS (23.5) = 39.2%

2002 - UMP (33.3) + PS (24.1) = 57.4%

2007 - UMP (39.5) + PS (24.7) = 64.2%

UMP & PS definitely the 2 major parties in France.

National Front (FN) is a borderline case (low legislative result in 2007 but reasonably good results in presidential 2007 and in 2002 presidential/legislative elections). Probably major?

Communist Party

2002 - 4.8%

2007 - 4.3%

Low popular vote, but manages to win a fair number of seats. I think they are now a minor party.

Les Verts (Greens) - minor

UDF/MoDem/NC

2002 - UDF - 4.9%

2007 - MoDem - 7.6% /NC - 2.4%

NC cannot be considered major party, having got only 2.4% of vote (even though they will win a fair number of seats). MoDem is a 'new' party contesting 1st election, so it might still be premature to make a call as to whether it is major or minor.Mrodowicz 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the RPR+PS only account for 39.2%, was the in 1997 the UDF was still a major party. A better comparison would be RPR+UDF+PS in this case --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC--142.165.117.74 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Petrovic-Njegos - My point was that France appears to be moving towards a mild 2-party system, and that there is probably a need to reevaluate the status of the other parties. The last 2 elections (particularly the last), seem to indicate this. I'm inclined to say (and this may still be a little premature - we may have to wait for 1 more election) that the only real major parties appear to be the UMP and PS. The others (MoDem, FN, Communists and Greens) would probably be better classified as "significant minor parties" to distinguish them from the numerous micro-parties contesting elections in France. Mrodowicz (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

MPF & RPF

Both Parties are not as "far-right" as the Front National or the MNR. They are both "govermental right" and connected to the UMP. You should change the declariations into "far-right" and "govermental-right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.165.200 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that it's a mistake to put the far-right and the EU-sceptics together. I propose that we split those two categories and place MNR and FN under far-right and MPF and RPF under euro-sceptic. Does anybody have other proposals? J-C V (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) --142.165.117.74 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)(!!!Dillion Merasty rox!!!)--142.165.117.74 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done it now. J-C V (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Party classifications

The party classification is not totally correct. For example, the Left Party never was, and the French Communist Party is no longer a "far-left party" since aeons.

A first rough of correction could look like this:

(I've forgot to sign, sorry, Captain frakas (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

-> The democratic movement is not a "significant protester" because it's a government'party. He govern in Region or in "communes" with other party like UMP or socialist party... it's bad judgment and caricature. --87.218.116.150 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This classification is much better than the one currently used in the article. Let's proceed the change, then let's correct this table above. What about having in the table all the parties that have at least one regional, parliement, European, senat representant instead of the "minor" description? The other parties can be considered as minor. Also, for the sake of clarity, we could indicate only the president of the party instead of couple of notable people. We can create another part in the article for the former parties instead of adding them in this table. --D0kkaebi (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The change is done but based on this form, I would like to propose a new presentation.

• First table: Title "Nationaly represented parties" with all parties that have at least one representative at the European Parliament, national assembly or senate. Parties will be shown in order of importance meaning, number of elected people at European Parliament, national assembly and senate.
• Second table: Title "Minor parties" with all other parties with number of regional and municipal councilors if possible. Parties will be shown from Left to right.

Waiting your suggestion, if none I would proceed the change. --D0kkaebi (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nationwide represented parties

Locally represented parties

Minor parties

Regional parties

I would think that ideally, we could add number of cantonal elected people from French cantonal elections, 2011 for each parties people and rank the parties by order of elected person as I did above. --D0kkaebi (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I created a minor parties section for parties without any running mandates to any elections. These 2 above are to be completed. --D0kkaebi (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Added all minor parties from the article. --D0kkaebi (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Finally I seperated the regional parties from the nationwide parties. I believe it would be better to make a part seperated for each region than mixing them with the nationwide parties. --D0kkaebi (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks D0kkeabi, I think that your suggestions enhance mine even if I would have keep the classification according the seven groups : far-right, right-wing, centre-right, green, centre-left, left-wing, far-left. It help to find fast informations. (I mean keep this classification inside your own separation of national/regional parties). About the general council (the departmental executive council elected in the French cantonal elections), it would be a bit hard to found the informations I fear, especially when there is many parties coalitions with the inclusion in those lists of some peoples that do not necessary own any political party card. Captain frakas (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is some omissions or errors in the new leader/chairmen list. For example, Philippe Poutou is not the leader/chairman (neither he is the power behind the throne) of the NPA but his candidate in the presidential election. The NPA have (had) two spokeswomen who are the "officials" representative of the NPA. Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the co-president of the Left Party, with Martine Billard, &c. Captain frakas (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My humble corrections/suggestions :

I think that it is a good compromise between the clear ideological cassification and the importance to not lost important parties among others nationwide parties. I wait your suggestions. If nobody disagree we could use the following table instead of the one currently used on the article.

Major nationwide represented parties

Others nationwide represented parties

Locally represented parties

the same categories should be made for regional/minor parties IMHO Captain frakas (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for coming back on the page. If you see any mistakes such as Poutou as not the leader of NPA, you can correct that directly in the article. I saw some mistakes also in the number of representant for NC.
Regarding the ideological classification, I would think it leads to a classification too much based on our point view. For example, how to classify "Front de Gauche" of Mélenchon? Left wing? Far-left? If they are left wing, socialist party should be center-left? If they are classified far-left, where to locate LO? far-far left? Also, in the minor parties, there are some parties neither left nor right like Pirates Party, UPR. Where to locate them? What about Royalist and monarchist party? What about purely green parties? Lot of parties are neither right nor left. That is why I suggested to just rank them by number of representents so that we can clearly see who are the main parties ruling France.
Regarding the number of elected person at cantonal, I could find it for some parties such as CPNT. I would think it would be best to add that info when we have it. And if we don't, that is ok too. --D0kkaebi (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcoming :)

Well, I donʼt think that it is based on our POV. If necessary we could find some source but...

the Left party is born from the union of the Trait d'Union & Forces militantes, two left-wing currents that broke away from the Socialist party at the Reims Congress. It's position is not that far away from the positions of the Socialist Party before 1983. They are a very classical left-wing party.

The Socialist Party is made of many currents that have different ideological or strategical views. However they evaluated (a little bit like many other left party in Europe) to a huge delorist social-democrat/social-liberal (i.e. centre-left) group with others more humbles currents more left-wing or more centre-left.

Lutte Ouvrière (LO) is obviously a Far-Left party, he is clearly a revolutionary party that use elections as a way to propagate it's idea to the French peoples but that do not trust that elections are a way to change the society. Only revolution could, at their eyes.

Ultimately, their electoral alliances are a good indicator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain frakas (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Party do not have any peopleʼs representatives, but if they had, they would deserve, just like Green (and just like what I made in my actual and original table), their own category. &c.

By the way, I think that the ranking according their number of representatives is at last equally arbitrary in the sense that their number of representatives do not correspond to their popular support or to the number of peoples that vote for them but to number of reserved seats they get in their electoral alliances with one of the two major parties. In my humble opinion, it is a very perilous game to rank them this way.

The two soles parties that are way above the others are the PS and the UMP, which are isolated in their own first category in my last table.

Cheers Captain frakas (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check the list, there are many parties that have very unclear positioning in terms of right and left. The Left and Right positioning correspond to a point of view. When we go to the far-right, why De Villiers is not "far-right"? What about the PCD? How to rank a party more to the left than any other? Also for neither right nor left parties such as Parti Pirates, you mentioned about creating their own category. Where do you locate the category? Before the far-left? In the Center between Greens and Centrists? Next to the far-right with FN? My point is that classifying a party here and there can lead to debates with no solution. At least, with the number of representatives, there is no questioning about it, it is just based on fact. If you do not agree on this idea, what I can suggest is that we summary the benefit of both classification and request the advise to the community or mediation. Then we can follow their point of view. Tell me your opinion :) --D0kkaebi (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

About the ideological classification:

The Parti chrétien-démocrate (PCD) is typical of the European christian democracy. It was part of the former UDF ("the" French centre-right party) and is now allied with the UMP.

Villiers lead the Mouvement pour la France (MPF), a populist, sovereignist and social conservative party. It refuse any alliances with the Front national but was allied in the past with Pasqua (a gaullist) and is now part of the UMP coalition.

 The Front national is the union of real far-right parties, movements, mainly Ordre nouveau. Those parts (Algérie française, neo-nazis, pétainistes, catholic fundamentalist, &c.) continue to be a significant part of the core of the Front national.

The distinction seem somewhat obvious in my eyes but if you thought it's too subjective and if none here can agree on the current classification, I think it would be better to simply collect the sources of how historians/political philosophers/journalists organise French political parties or their assumed ideology.

About category of the Parti Pirate (which is not really a problem, the French Parti pirate do not have any peopleʼs representatives. He do not have yet the health of his German counterpart), I would put them as I have put the Greens, between centre-right and centre-left, because considering their issues (mostly individual liberties) it's where they would stand the best and anecdotaly because the centrism ideology is defined as being "is the ideal or the practice of promoting policies that lie different from the standard political left and political right".

About the ranking based on the number of representatives:

I disagree, it's not really just facts as you created the key to transform number of representatives (i.e. number of seats "given" by the UMP or the PS to their allies, in most cases) to calculate points that determinate the rank. For example why did you classified the Parti chrétien démocrate behind CAP21? Because one MEP (elected in the Proportional representation as being part of a pack of many candidates) count more than one national deputy (elected in a two round system on his sole name)? How so?

Why does the Front national is less well ranked than Debout la République? Because he get less representatives? Thatʼs because he is isolated and do not have seats distributed by the UMP or the PS like other parties better ranked than him. But on each elections where the FN is present, he have a huge better score than what could dream Debout la Republic and his leader...

So I agree to summary the benefit of both classification and request the advise to the community or mediation so we could follow their point of view. ;)

To summary, I do not say that my own classification of parties insides those categories is good (we can ameliorate it) but that this classification is better than the one based on a formula that take account of the number of MEP, deputies and senators, as it would be faster for the user to found and search among the parties. I add that the classification according the number of parliamentary do not seem very pertinent in my eyes. To finish, in my classification, I have isolated in the top grouping the two majors parties so one would found them fast. Those grouping are major nationwide represented parties (the UMP and the PS), other nationwide represented parties (all those who have at least one parliamentary), locally represented parties (those who have at least one territorial councillor), regional parties (parties that only present candidate in one region), and other parties (the others). Captain frakas (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I understand the logic of the left and right classification of French parties. However, the problem of this point of view is that it is typically a French perspective. That is why it is introduced in this way on the French Misplaced Pages. However, on the English Misplaced Pages, we have to consider that most of the people have no background about French politics. The left and right way of seeing politics has a little significant in the English speaking countries. And that is why describing a political party with his ideology points would have more significance for a non-French native. Moreover, a "French right" ideology can correspond to an "English Left" or a "Russian far-right" which give even less meaning to this classification on the English Misplaced Pages. Also, as I mentioned before, the classification can lead to debates with no solutions. Let me give you some examples compare to your classification:

• Why is the Unitarian Left (allies of left front) is classified to far-left when other parties of the left front are classified as left-wing? Where is the line between left and far-left?
• Why EELV is classified as Green and not in the left-wing? Their major breaking points with other green parties is that to their point of view, ecology can only be a progressive idea thus a "French left ideology".
• Why Cap 21 is classified as Green more than a Centrist? They were allied with Modem for many years.
• Why Modem is classified as center-right instead of just center? The breaking points with Morin's NC was that he was considering that centrist could only be a right-wing allied as it was during French history. So Modem would be a real centrist party, neither right, nor left.
• All the parties of the RESA Alliance are described as Ecological forces. Why aren't they in the Green classification?
• MPF and FN having the very similar point of view on politics such as Euroscepticism, law enforcement, anti-immigration, why aren't they in the same far-right category?
• CPNT is conservative, eurosceptic as MPF and FN, why aren't they in the same far-right category?

And to anything that can be answered to this, I will be able to find other points that would defend another classification. My point is that this classification is potentially a "remote debate bomb" that won't help to bring facts about the parties.
Using the number of representatives, is a clear facts about who is representing French politics in the European Parliament, in French Parliament and in the French senates. We do not have to matter whether FN represent 15% of people's vote but are not represented in the French Parliament. Because, this is a fact that the FN has no political influence in the senate or in the Parliament whatever they represent in the population. The article is about the French political parties and not their result to the elections which can be another article. You raise the points on how to rank parties that have the same number of representants such as FN and DLR and why ranking DLR above FN. When they are equals, I used the alphabetical order. Number of representants and then alphabetical order. It leaves little debates opportunity once the classification is accepted. So to summary the points for this classification:

• Left / right classification is a French perspective
• Left / right classification has a different referential compare to countries / cultures it is read
• Left / right classification has a little significance in English speaking countries (Democrats / Republicans for the US, Labour / Liberal democrats / conservatism for the UK...)
• There is not a single clear left or right definition even in the French culture.
• Thus Left / right classification can lead to debates without solution.
• There are some parties that does not fit with the Left / right classification such as Centrist, Royalist parties, UPR, Parti Pirates, Greens (...)
• Classification by number of elected representants in the 3 majors election is a fact with no debates possible.
• When there is equal number of representants, alphabetical order is a fact with no debates possible.
• Classification with number of representants show the real influence of the party in the Republic institutions (European Parliament, Senates and National Assembly).

--D0kkaebi (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK

Honestly I am not convinced by your questions (for example I don't understand how you could insist on a so-called proximity between the MPF and the FN while those are clearly of very very different natures: the MPF is a very conservative party with many gaullist points of views and as such being part of the "bonapartist" family while the Front national is a nationalist and racist party and as such being part of the "anti-dreyfusard" family. Those two families of right-wing parties are antagonists (there is four right families : bonapartiste, orléaniste, anti-dreyfusarde and the now quasi-extinct légitimiste. There is well known political scientist works on this subject). For the sake of clarity, I will not list my disagreement on those questions. But if you wish to, I could detail.

However, what you say about Left/Right classification being a French perspective and not something used this way in English speaking countries is very pertinent.

Nevertheless, as this article concern French political parties, I think that this major consideration of the French political spectre could still be used. This is even how this article was wrote originally before your last changes. The fact that there is a lot of political scientist works and political news articles published in France (and certainly elsewhere) would help, as in many others matters, to not fall on a "remote debate bomb".

But I would not argue endless on that, and we could both appreciate the intervention of other peoples. If we finally chose to not use any ideological classification, I think that a pure alphabetical classification would be better than using number of elected representatives.

(We have a very different point of view but I appreciate that we both want to enhance this article, cheers!)

So to summary the points for the ideological classification:

• Left / right classification is a major French perspective on a French subject
• There is an very clear left or right perception on the French political culture. And this consideration is often the main motivation of vote of French citizens, before the exact political platform.
• There is also a lot of political works of political scientists and of political newspaper.
• Thus, contrary to what is said by D0kkaebi, the left/right classification would in no way lead to debate without solutions. Some (including I) could be wrong on a specific case, but there is a lot of sources and scientific works to allow to be corrected.
• All the parties that have peoples representatives (in regional councils and in national and European parliaments) fit the left/right classification, but for historical reasons, Greens (id est party with ecology as a fundamental ideological basis) could use their own category.
• Classification by ideology is the most instinctive and the easiest way to found a party in the list when one do not know his name.

Captain frakas (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply and summary. I posted a third opinion request here. Let's wait their comments and apply the classification they recommend. ^^ --D0kkaebi (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'll give my opinion shortly; in the meantime, I've collapsed the tables to make this section a little easier to navigate (they were taking up a lot of vertical space). Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm ready. (up-front disclaimer: I know virtually nothing of French politics. Consider it an "outsider view", if you like.) I'm tending to the purely alphabetical ordering, myself. I'm quite sympathetic to frakas's points, especially the one about how classification by ideology makes it easier to find certain parties. My biggest problem with the left-right classification is this: it seems to me that the left/right paradigm is pretty prevalent among Western countries (certainly it's a hot topic in the US, at least), but it also seems to have a different meaning in each country in which it is used. For one thing, each country has a spectrum of political opinions within it, but the spectrum of opinions covered by political parties is not the same between countries. For example, the death penalty still has quite strong support in the US (especially among the right wing, where it is seen as a kind of "foundation issue", but not limited to them) but it has been abolished by most other countries. So the distinction between left and right could mean many different things to many different people. It seems to me (although I don't know this for sure, since I don't know the state of the French Misplaced Pages) that, while it would make perfect sense to order these parties by the French concept of left/right on the French Misplaced Pages, it doesn't make as much sense to do it on the English Misplaced Pages, where fewer French people and more non-French people are the audience.

As a secondary point, I think that, particularly with this level of distinction (left/center-left/green/center-right/right), such categorization could lead to frequent controversies over where an individual party should be placed. I'd defer to frakas's opinion that there is enough literature to make definitive decisions about where a party is, but I'm worried that that won't stop the disputes from happening a lot.

Given the above, I'd probably just suggest pure alphabetical ordering; can't go wrong with that as a neutral, uncontroversial sorting method. And I'd just like to add that this is one of the most civil, friendly disputes to which I've given a 3O; you should both be commended on your willingness to discuss things with each other. (It's amazing how quickly things like civility get thrown out the window sometimes, especially when politics are involved... :P ) Very nicely done; thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for helping us improving the article. Even if I am not a fan of the alphabetical order, I have to recognize that this the least controversial classification. Since this is your recommendation, I think me and Captain frakas can proceed the change in the main article. All right Writ Keeper, thank you very much for your help and good praise !! --D0kkaebi (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, generally in France it is considered that revolutionary left that think changes could only happen via revolution is far-left (LO, the "former LCR current" of the NPA). The reformed left that think changes could happen via the actual democracy are left-wing (PCF, PG, PS, RDG). Radicals, chritian-democrats and orleanist left are considered as centre-right (PR, PCD, MoDem, the "former UDF current" of the UMP). Bonapartist right is considered as right-wing (MPF, DLR, the gaullist and "former RPR current" of the UMP). The legitimist and anti-dreyfusard right are considered as far-right (FN). 

I can however understand all your points and approve them. Especially the one about the fact that left/right wing paradigm have different meaning following the countries and could as such lead to misunderstanding). The alphabetical order seem to me to be the best compromise between all our points and as D0kkaebi said, weʼll follow this recommendation to proceed the change. Thanks you. :) Captain frakas (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It would mean:

Major nationwide represented parties

Others nationwide represented parties

Locally represented parties

Captain frakas (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for compiling this. I would integrate the PS and UMP in the ranking with others otherwise, we will have to justify what is a "major" party. Thus "head of state" part can be removed. Regarding the addition of the representation of the MEP in the European parliement, that is a very good idea. --D0kkaebi (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi D0kkaebi,

A major party is a party who is able to have one of his candidates elected as Head of States, designated as Head of Governments, who is able to lead the parliamentary majority or that lead the parliamentary opposition. Since 1981, only two political parties were abloe achieved each of those criterias. Other politicals parties failed to achieve each of them, or even one of them. France stay somewhat "bipartist" : there is two political parties of importance in 2012 (and it is the case since 1981) : The UMP/former RPR and the PS. The head of state, considering his powers in the French Vth republic and the fact that he is directly elected, is somewhat important. It is even indicated in the introduction of the wikipedia article :

"France has a multi-party system, with numerous parties in which no one party often has a chance of gaining power alone, and parties must work with each other to form coalition governments. Since the 1980s, France's government has alternated between two rather stable coalitions:

• on the left, one led by the Socialist Party and with minor partners such as the French Communist Party, Europe Écologie–The Greens, Left Party, and the Left Radical Party.
• on the right, one led by the Union for a Popular Movement and its predecessors Rally for the Republic and the Union for French Democracy, with support from the centrist Nouveau Centre

It is difficult for parties outside those coalitions to make significant inroads, though the National Front has had sizable successes."

Plus it have the advantage to directly show the two parties of major importance and to not hide them among minor or significant minors parties in the alphabetical order. I think that it is pertinent to keep them on their own ranking.

Cheers

Captain frakas (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll update the article list with the one previously presented there as soon as it use the result of the last French legislative election. Captain frakas (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Front National

"...although the National Front has had sizable successes" (from first section)

I think this needs to be defined. One of the most striking things about the Front National is actually its lack of success relative to its vote share. It's completely marginalised in the French party system and has hardly any representation at all, even at municipal level - all due to the French electoral system. Apart from Le Pen getting to the second round in the presidential election, the FN has achieved almost nothing electorally so we need to be specific about what we're citing as a success. It would be accurate to say the party has had some success in gaining support, but not in terms of electoral success (i.e. winning seats). 78.40.152.246 (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest adding some information on the popular vote tallies, into the table, which will help make this distinction clear. Right now there is just a binary mention that PS/PRG has "Head of state 1/1" and that by contrast LR-fka-UMP has "Head of state 0/1" which is truthful but does not give the full picture. It would be preferable to say something like this: PS/PRG head of state 10.3m votes (winner 29%), LR/UMP head of state 9.8m votes (2nd 27%), FN head of state 6.4m votes (3rd 18%), FG aka PCF/FASE/PG head of state 4.0m votes (4th 11% shared among multiple parties), MoDem head of state 3.3m (5th 9%), EELV head of state 0.8m (6th 2.3%), DLR head of state 0.6m (7th 1.8%), and so on for the other parties. In addition to helping highlight the discrepancy between popular-vote success as distinct from electoral success, this will also be more informative about the degree of electoral success each party achieved in recent presidential elections. These numbers are pulled from wikipedia, so please don't rely on them to be correct, check with a reliable source please before inserting :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternate names/acronyms

I ended up on this page today while watching the French news (France 2 Journal du 20h) and wanting to check a party acronym (DLR). Eventually I discovered they changed their name last year to Debout la France (DLF), but this wasn't anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. I've added this information to the party article, but I still doubt I would have found it had it already been there. As a general principle, details like that belong in dedicated articles, but I still think it would be useful here so I'll add it to the table. If it's considered clutter here then remove it, but if all you have to go on is the acronym the information is not very accessible elsewhere. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Same problem with UMP versus the modern incarnation LR. If there is not enough room in the table for the acronyms, it is probably best to at least have a footnote that gives the historical acronyms for the predecessor or quasi-associated parties. Footnotes are also the way to go, if the connection needs a prose-explanation rather than a simple "fka UMP" or similar shorthand notation. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of political parties in France/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

difference between MEP-count and European-affiliation-MEP-count

I don't believe the article explains what the distinction is between the number of MEPs listed in the 'Parliamentaries' column, and the sometimes-different number of MEPs listed in the 'European Affiliation' column. For the three largest parties, PS/PRG with 12, LR/UMP with 19, and FN with 23, there is no difference in the figures (i.e. for FN they have 23 parliamentaries and also 23 EU affiliates), but for at least two of the smaller parties the numbers differ.

• MoDem, MEP parliamentaries: 5 / 74, European Democratic Party MEP EU-affiliates: 9 / 754.
• EELV, MEP parliamentaries: 14 / 74, European Green Party MEP EU-affiliates: 47 / 754.

I'm guessing this is because EELV and MoDem are the local-to-France branches of multinational parties that also have branches in other EU countries? But the article here does not say, one way or the other. Or possibly, the MoDem and EELV figures are out-of-sync because one column is from the most recent election results, and another column has outdated election results from a past cycle? If somebody who knows more about this can please add some explanatory text (and if necessary correct the figures to be the latest), that would be appreciated. I would myself, but I don't know enough about French politics to do so confidently. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Incompleteness

Hello, several current parliamentary parties are lacking in this list. They should be added. What are your views on this issue? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has been neglected for a while – I think I'll just turn it into a plain list with a few composition tables like the French Misplaced Pages one when I have more time. Mélencron (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

France unie is a political party with an article on French Misplaced Pages. However, there is some doubt about its addition as it has a quite anomalous structure for a party.

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous regional parties with parliamentary representation. How should they be added to the list?

• À gauche en Guyane
• Archipel demain
• Ensemble pour construire
• Guadeloupe unie, solidaire et responsable
• Mouvement populaire franciscain
• Parti socialiste guyanais
• Tapura huiraatira
• Calédonie ensemble
• Le Rassemblement
• Tavini huiraatira
• Picardie debout
• Rassemblement Responsabilité Réussite
• Calédonie ensemble
• Parti communiste réunionnais
• Union démocratique bretonne
• Parti pour la libération de la Martinique
• Parti progressiste martiniquais
• Rassemblement démocratique pour la Martinique
• Bâtir le pays Martinique
• Pour La Réunion
• Fédération socialiste de la Martinique
• Rézistans Égalité 974
• Union pour la démocratie (Saint-Martin)
• Cap sur l'avenir

Sarcelles (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Pè a Corsica was missing on above list.Sarcelles (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• France unie
• Pè a Corsica
• Picardie debout
• Union démocratique bretonne

are above mentioned regional respectively special parties, but active in Metropolitan France. I advocate their inclusion for the table Other nationwide represented parties.Sarcelles (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

According to the French article, France Unie does not exist anymore.Sarcelles (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added Bâtir le pays Martinique and Fédération socialiste de la Martinique erroneously,

Mouvement indépendantiste martiniquais is a parliamentary party.Sarcelles (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Union démocratique bretonne is not a parliamentary party, according to its French article.Sarcelles (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Molac is a sitting deputy, but I think he joined LREM outright. Mélencron (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The French article on him says, he is a member of neither LREM nor UDB. http://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/deputes/fiche/OMC_PA607619 doesn't have him as a party member either.Sarcelles (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, he left a few weeks ago it looks like. I don't think any of the other Breton deputies are UDB either as almost all are LREM. Mélencron (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• List-Class France articles
• High-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• List-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles