“Elect me Prime Minister” : this is how Jean-Luc Mélenchon launched the legislative battle, even before the second round of the presidential election and the victory of Emmanuel Macron. No break, and a “third round” in which the left succeeded, with the soap opera of the union, to interest. Now that the agreement between LFI, EELV, the PCF and the PS is recorded, what estimates can we make of the results of the first round of the legislative elections?
>> Follow the campaign for the legislative elections on our live
To build these estimates, franceinfo retrieved the results of the presidential election, which we correlated to the participation of 2017 [voir la méthodologie en fin de papier]. Here is the result.
The “New Popular Ecological and Social Union” or NUPES is doing very well, and would be present in the second round in 471 constituencies. This is more than La République en Marche (448 qualifications) and than the National Rally which would only have 296 constituencies in the second round. Far behind, Les Républicains and Reconquête would only be second in one constituency each: the 14th in Paris for Éric Zemmour’s party, in Wallis-et-Futuna in the case of LR.
In detail, the left would be the most present in the second round, but also most often in the lead in the first. A trend that is confirmed regardless of the participation in the ballot, and which can be explained according to the sociologist and political scientist Jean Tiberj: “The left crashed in 2017 because it was disunited”. However, the different logics between the presidential and the legislative elections “lead to score variations on the left between the different formations. Mechanically, if the left is united, they will be much less strong”.
“We are starting to see amazing things. It is unusual to see the left so high at the start of legislative elections. Maybe something is at stake.”
Jean Tiberj, sociologist at Sciences Po Bordeauxat franceinfo
Still, with three blocks of nearly similar strength to the presidential, a record number of triangulars could be expected. This is far from being the case, if we stick to our starting assumption, namely a participation equal to that of 2017.
But we also wanted to test two scenarios. In the first, participation would be ten points higher than in 2017 (more or less participation in the 2012 legislative elections). In the second, we imagine that participation would gain 30 points, thus approaching the participation record for legislative elections.
Conclusion: if turnout increases, the number of triangular figures is greater, as shown by the two hypotheses tested (turnout ten points higher than in 2017 and one that would approach the turnout record for legislative elections (+30 points per year). compared to 2017)). And this is due to the very particular voting system of the legislative elections.
Qualify in the second round the candidates who have been able to bring together more than 12.5% of the registered voters, that is to say the number of people present on the electoral lists. The greater the abstention, the more it is necessary to reach a high score of votes cast to hope to qualify. In the event that no candidate meets the conditions, the two leading candidates are qualified, regardless of their score.
This system plays against the National Rally. First, because “National Rally voters traditionally travel less to the legislative elections”, recalls Vincent Tiberj. Then because the union of the left often brings the RN to the 3rd plan. If the abstention is strong, the option “by default” will apply, and qualify the first two. On the other hand, if it weakens, more candidates arriving third can access the second round, which mechanically leads to more triangles. But, Jean Tiberj reminds us: in 1997, “the plural left had won thanks to the triangles”.
What our analysis also reveals is that it is the duels between La République en Marche and the Union des Gauches that could be the most important (if participation is close to 2017). This would be the case in 271 constituencies. The union of the left could then benefit from the anti-Macron vote. “We will ask ourselves the question of who we are against the most? It will depend on the type of far-right votersanalyzes the political scientist. The popular worker-Lepenist electorate can be attracted by a discourse of a united left. On the other hand, if the RN vote is that of the conservative middle classes anti-immigrants and anti-taxes, it could be rather for Emmanuel Macron”without forgetting of course the possibility of a massive abstention from the national bloc.
104 constituencies would replay the second round of the presidential election between the party of Emmanuel Macron and that of Marine Le Pen. Finally, 121 duels would face the left and the National Rally. A situation that will be “complicated” for Macronist voters according to the political scientist: “We will have to see if they recognize one of the two as adversaries, as in 2002 when Chirac was the adversary and Le Pen the enemy, or if both are enemies.”
“If it’s a PS candidate facing the RN, it will be easier for a Macronist voter to see him as an opponent. But if it’s an EELV candidate on the Rousseau line? Or an LFI candidate?”
John Tiberjat franceinfo
We must not bury the Republicans too quickly or even possible socialist dissidents either, specifies Jean Tiberj. “These are two parties that can count on their base. Let’s not forget that they had already survived in 2017.” Finally, concludes the teacher at Sciences Po Bordeaux, with all these issues, “the Llegislative will perhaps make it possible to make the presidential campaign that we expected”.
Methodology and details
To calculate these estimates, we retrieved the results of the first round of the presidential election by legislative constituency. We then calculated, for each candidate, what percentage of registered voters this would represent, based on participation by constituency in the first round of the 2017 legislative elections. This makes it possible to obtain estimates that are more faithful to the legislative voting system.
Why not take national participation and apply it to all constituencies? With the aim of arriving at the most detailed estimates possible, which take into account the differences in participation from one constituency to another. On the other hand, this does not erase the disparities in voting between presidential and legislative: the assumption is made that we would vote identically between the two ballots, which is not necessarily exact.
Why these two scenarios? The objective was first to anticipate a possible change in participation on the rise. Participation in the 2017 legislative elections was historically low, and we can therefore bet that it will rise a little. Hence a scenario with a turnout close to that of 2012. To do this, in all the constituencies we added 10 points to the 2017 turnout. : +30 points, i.e. close to the participation record for a first round of legislative elections which was established in 1978.