We call them democracies when they are basicly two party dictatorships

>work 2 years in a bank
>is now a "banker"
Yeah I worked in a bank too, what about it

The problem with France is the legislative where a party with 20% vote can have 0 elected member.

How so?

Being a banker isn't illegal in France...
And to run for presidency you only need to:
1) be 22+
2) having the nationality (you can be born in another country, as a matter of fact Eva Joly who ran some years ago was born Norwegian and became French later in life).
3) not having been condemned for ineligibility (for instance, you were a mayor and found guilty of misappropriating public funds, you can't run for _ years)

So bankers can run.

It's very complex, but it's designed so the Assemblée nationale can't end up with 500 deputés of 100 different parties, ie clusterfuck.

It's possible to become president alone, but much harder to become a MP alone.

>bankers bad!

I'm saying your democracy is shit.
Macon had the responsibility for the largest transactions in a Rotschild bank. He's not at all independent.
Also what's new about him?
>be frog
>want change
>vote for macron
>doesn't get change
>gets more taxes
>go out in the street protesting

He's just like any other shitty politician.

I see ,our assembly is representativa ir: x% of the vote =x% of seats ,but if you get less then what percentage that equals a seat well you dont get One.
Why dont you do this two?

this but unironically

For running countries yes they are awfull,
Portugal was 40 years under the rule of a economic professor ,lets just the country didnt develop much in those years

>if his aproval rating is si low
Is it that low? I remember Sarkozy was at, was, 16% at some point?

There is a destitution procedure, of course (since the French president has total immunity, he could walk in the streets and shoot people with no consequences as long as he's president).
But you can't use it just because the people are disappointed. You need to wait for the next elections.
Othersiwe there would be presidential elections every other sunday in France.

>president disbans the goverment and calls elections
The president only handles some of the function, called the "regal powers": defense, justice...
He also appoints a Prime Minister (who may not be of his own party, mind you, this happened several times).
The Prime Minister is head of government (not head of state) and chooses ministers for economy, environment, education....

The President can also disband the assemblée nationale. There are then new legislative elections and the President must then appoint as Prime Minister according to which party won those elections.
It's his prerogative but it must be handled with caution - in a crisis you don't have a choice, but gambling with it can be disastrous.
Famously, Chirac, just after being elected President in 1995 disbanded the assemblée, hoping to get a better majority.
It backfired spectacularly (he lost many seats) and there were a million laughs. A costly gaffe.

Because the 4th Republic had proportionnal representation, and on average governments lasted 3 months. It was a complete clusterfuck, and the 5th Republic was designed around the idea of a more efficient parliement, even if it becomes less pluralistic for it.

He's the one the majority of the people wanted.
Just run for presidency (you can, like Eva Joly) and if the French like you better, you'll become President.
Unless you're not 22 yet, then you'll have to wait.

Anybody can be elected (you can't use, or need, money ; and the media can't help even if they want) including nobodies like Macron was.
Just run on "with me, unlike Macron you'll get change, and I'll lower the taxes".

Just having less seats in the assembly would work equaly as well just ,mais the percentage need to get a seat Higher

Here its literally just 1 party.
Germans are too cucked to even take the bait.

Oh ok so its like dual power the president and prime minister?
Here in portugal the president has very little power, he can veto laws 2 Times , if they get passed Twice more the goes Over him and the laws just gets aproved , and he also has the power to disband the goverment but its up to him to do it there isnt a specific criteria

>Here its literally just 1 party.
Japan, too, but why not if it works?

In condos here (buildings with many proprietors, each with one apartment), the law requires elections between the proprietors every year to elect a president to handle the common affairs.
For 10+ years, we only had one candidate so he was elected with 100% and everything was fine.
Then he tried to abuse his powers, I then ran against him and won with 100% minus himself.
Now he now longers run so there's again 1 party (me) and this will probably last until I try to exploit the situation myself.
In a country it's much more complicated, of course, but imagine an immensely competent, perfectly honest and reasonably charismatic person which can manage to handle ALL the issues perfectly, there's no reason he should have competition.

The guys running your media wouldn't like me.

Based. It has always been like that right?

Economic imperatives crushed political will in Europe.

Thats why east germany should have been the One unifying Germany ,the same 1 party dictatorship today but without a degenerate party at its head

Attached: large-portraits-flags.jpg (900x609, 120K)

Democracy is a temporary luxury of economic windfalls from military conquest of new territory or peoples.
Multiculturalism is imperialism and creates demand for imperial governments.

Its sad to see people unironicly cannot see further then center left or center rights , its like political tought has been wiped out the majority of the population of europe and replace with ignorance and drone mentality, what is the voter Turn out in France?

The President has great power.
When his party has a majority (either by itself or with allies) in the assemblée, the president does pretty much what he wants. That's what Chirac tried to do. But of course he can delegate some tasks to the relevant minister(s) who (supposedly at least) are on the same side.
When he hasn't a majority (that's what Chirac got), many matters end up decided by the ministers. The president is then less powerful but still considerably so. He's the one with the red button for the nukes, for instance. He can amnisty criminals.
Fun anecdote, he also becomes co-prince of Andorra because of ancient treaties.

>The guys running your media wouldn't like me

Told you, everyone gets the same speaking time, it's carefully monitored. During the months of campaining, it's carefully monitored.
You'll get the same media exposure as Macron and Le Pen.
Cold feet already?

Literally Greece

>the voter Turn out in France?
Presidentials >80%. Others 50-60%.
Mind you, elections are on sundays and often on the first sunny sundays of the year, it's tempting to go fish or something instead of voting.

Based
There is a lot of corruption in our governement and it really is not very different from other "democraties". Sure, we have a lot of secondary parties who manage to get 5, or even 10% of votes, but in the end it's always slightly left or right leaning party backed by the medias vs the big bad far right. I'd say our democracy is even more flawed than others since on the second turn our far right party always pass and we always have people who want to "stop hatred" and vote for whoever is on the other side, even if that guy worked for the Rotschilds.

Way less than 50%

Sort of. Democracy, as in the west, is currently defined as a country ruled by Jews.

>Based
yeah but wait, apparently he doesn't even want to try to houst Macron.

>our far right party always pass
No, this only happened in 2002 and 2017.
And in 2002 this was because of major incompetence of both left and right, which had foolishly produced too many candidates each.

In 2002, we ended up with Chirac, his term wasn't bad at all. He prevented us from getting dragged into the Iraq invasion for instance.
In 2017, we got Macron but let's let him finish before we rate his performance.

I some how doubt that ,for general elections here In portugual elections turnout is like 41% .
And is going fishing and catching some fish more important then to spend a few hours to decide the fate of your country?

Here are the figures for many years:
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention_électorale_en_France

Last presidential elections, 22,23 % did not vote
Last european in may, 49,88 % did not vote

>And is going fishing and catching some fish more important then to spend a few hours to decide the fate of your country?
For some people, yes. Also

>fate of your country
It's not like a President has not something really dramatic since 1962...
If there was a risk of major war or "Frexit" or something, probably near 100% would vote.

meant
It's not like a President has *done* something really dramatic since 1962...

>It's not like a President has not something really dramatic since 1962...
So your telling me you dont care how your country is Run unless its something dramatic?
Also lmao our voter turnout for the european elections was like 30% ,when i went to vote the Lady Said i was the first Young person se had seem Im the day ,i went to vote at 16h

It only counts people who are registered voters. The real number must be way lower.

>So your telling me you dont care how your country is Run unless its something dramatic?
No...
Some people always vote. Others never.
Between the two, there are some who don't think a president can do a whole lot to change the situation and is fine with said situation.
If the presidentials debates were "Leaving the EU vs remaining" or "let's invade Belgium vs stay cool" more people would vote.

When Le Pen unexpectedly ended up in the 2nd place in 2002 and actually had a shot at becoming president, there was a massive mobilization of people who weren't interested until then who voted in the second turn to block Le Pen. They hadn't in the first turn because they didn't think he could possibly get that high.
And they didn't think Chirac and Jospin (likely candidates) were that different. They had a point.

That's correct.

Vote blank isnt an option in every country.

Other parties are completely irrelevant, and pretty much fodder for the most popular party unless everyone is sick of the shit and a new charismatic leader appears.

Nobody gives a shit about elections in the end, nobody is willing to lose an eye for bullshit. It just won't happen, and when it does happen it's useless like Nicaragua or Venezuela. The UN doesn't even punish these nations, really no one gives a shit.