Jump to content

Talk:2012 French presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

manuel valls

[edit]

manuel valls ist not the declared candidate of the PS. he is the first declared candidate fir the sotialist primary elections, witch will determine the sotialist candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.53.139 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


potential and openly interested

[edit]

What exactly is the difference ? 195.169.141.54 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the former defines a situation when the candidacy is only hinted through various declarations and political context while the latter characterises an explicit intention to run; for instance, Sarkozy’s statement clearly shows he means to be the UMP’s candidate. — SniperMaské (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marine Le Pen - White Background.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Marine Le Pen - White Background.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thing doesn't seem to have been touched in YEARS

[edit]

Is there any way we could get the French article translated and transferred here?22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox

[edit]

The recent polls have shown that Marine Le Pen has been coming damn close to Sarko in the polls. She hasn't actually done it yet, but the French pollsters are doing second round polls with her. Remember, this is the first round, and she's got the five hundred signatures to get on the ballot. Look at the American primaries. The polls were all over the place and could change massivly in a very short time. This is no speculation, the polls show these four at the top. They should be there.Ericl (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You always have to make the cut between candidates included in the infobox and the ones not included. It will always be somehow arbitrary. Your choice of four candidates may be considered as arbitrary as my choice of two. The fact is: France has a de facto two-party system. All observers consider Hollande and Sarkozy the favourites. It is true that the gap between Sarkozy and his runners-up is not that big. But there is not a single recent opinion poll that sees someone else but Hollande and Sarkozy to qualify for the runoff. And only the runoff is decisive in this election. Regards --RJFF (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the gap between Bayrou and Mélenchon is only 5 points, and the gap between Mélenchon and Joly is only 3 points, and the gap between Joly and Villepin is only one point, etc. - so you could put them all in the infobox! --RJFF (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could make the pictures smaller and do just that! Four looks more decent than two, and remember, nobody ever expected Le Pen's father to make the second round. Jospin, was a shoo in for the elections in '97 (?) and he came in a close third and France with stuck with Chriac for five more years.23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Btw, per Figaro and Le Monde of today, Le Pen does not have her 500 signatures. Do you have more recent information than I have? "Looks more decent" is a very arbitrary and - forgive me - very bad argument. And do you really want to put 15 candidates in the infobox?! --RJFF (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asthetics is important to these pages when it comes to pictures. I figure that making the info-box look like the US primary boxes, which are more pleasing to the eye. The latest polls show Marine at 21%, only five points behind Hollande.Ericl (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
some remarks
  • Favorites: indeed, the four people you mentionned can make it to the runoff; Bayrou would need some good numbers in the polls whereas Le Pen would need to be underestimated by them. As for the runoff, three men can win: Hollande, Bayrou and Sarkozy (against all ods though). Remember, Le Pen's platform is the closest to Pétainisme the 21st-century way, she can't win properly.
  • Pictures: to put it frankly, the page isn't readable with all these pictures -- i'm not asking for an insight of the ideology
  • France has a de facto two-party system: not deniable since 2002, but quite wrong looking at history and what the voting system allows. There's plentiful of parties on the right ready to bite into Sarkozy's party when he's out, whereas the left-wing is having long-term coherence issues; in the near future they will change their names.
148.60.85.151 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that France doesn't have a de facto two party system. There are two dominant political forces, PS and UMP, but it is very different than in the United States where the system is entirely built for two candidates in most elections. After all, in France, in 2002, the socialists weren't in the runoff of the presidential election, in the last european elections, the green obtained as many MEP as the socialists and the UMP is a very recent party that could very well disappear in a few years. And for the favourite, there is only one (not 2 or 3) : Hollande. So, unless we decide to use only his picture, I think that it's ok to have Le Pen and Bayrou in the infobox. Eleventh1 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we delete any candidate name and picture from the infobox (except the one from the incumbent president (Sarkozy)?). There is no meaning to have an info box with 5 pictures and below a "gallery" with the 10 candidates pictures. --Lawren00 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox will shrink to two candidates after the first round. I don't see the need to change it now. I don't think that elevating only the picture of the incumbent is a good idea, because Wikipedia doesn't take sides, neither for the incumbent, nor for the opposition. --RJFF (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is typically the last modification of the page made here. What is the reasoning for having 5 candidates, not 4, not 3, not 6, not the 10? Why these 5? Why not Eva Joly? Since there is a gallery at the bottom of the page, I suggest we remove all the pictures and names from the infobox and leave only France politics box. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it obvious? The choice of candidates included in the infobox is guided by recent opinion poll ratings. The gap between the score of the candidates in the infobox and the one of Eva Joly is quite significant. I'm against changing it now. Let's wait for the result of the 1st round. --RJFF (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marine Le Pen - Sky Background.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Marine Le Pen - Sky Background.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates listing order

[edit]

Hello, how was decided the order of candidacy listing? In the previous election French_presidential_election,_2007, when not listed by election result performance, it was listed by alphabetical order. I would like to suggest changing the order in this way. --Lawren00 (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, they are sorted by the strength of their parties and the poll rating of the candidates, repectively. In my view, this is quite useful and should be retained. --RJFF (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Since polls are not reflected here (There is a page with Polls), why not changing the page by alphabetical in order to be more fair. Then we can change the order when the results come? --Lawren00 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. For readers who want to inform on the elections, it is relevant which candidates are major and actually have a realistic chance to come of well in the election. Therefore a sorting by strength of the nominating parties is helpful and fair. --RJFF (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I agree with you that readers may want to see who are the most popular candidates and I was thinking that was the purpose of the page with all the polls. Therefore we could have a different presentation here like French wikipedia is presenting them from left to right political positioning. Anyway, if there is a consensus to keep the "poll" order, then I am not insisting anymore. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidates

[edit]

Following the revert of my addition: (actu | diff) 7 mars 2012 à 18:44‎ OldSquiffyBat (discuter | contributions)‎ . . (11 852 octets) (-740)‎ . . (revert to last version by RJFF - Asselineau is just one of dozens of minor candidates and it makes sense to limit this article to the main 8/12).
Hello, you are arguing that it would make "sense" to limit the article to 8 or 12 candidates however, there are now 10 candidates and you just deleted the 11th. In addition, by watching the article of French_presidential_election,_2007, you can see that all candidates are mentioned in the article. It is not limited to an arbitrary 8 or 12. Thus, I believe it would be better to add the missing information in the article such as François Asselineau, Jacques Cheminade and Corinne Lepage's candidacy. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with 2007 is that the 2007 presidential election already happened... so we know who were the candidates. For 2012, we have to wait until March 16-17 (maybe even March 19) to be sure of who will be a real candidate. Then if Asselineau, Cheminade and Lepage really have their 500 signatures, we will mention them. Until that, it seems premature because many self-proclaimed candidates have dropped out in the past few weeks and many more will drop out in the next two weeks. Eleventh1 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts that I agree with. Therefore, why don't we add all the potential candidates and clean-up whenever they drop? Also, what is a "self-proclaimed candidates"? Asselineau's candidacy was announced by Nord Eclair, Le Parisien, La Voix du Nord... Would it be more logical to reintegrate at least those 3? --Lawren00 (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer to your questions, to add all the candidates would force us to define an inclusion criteria, to search extensively who are all the candidates (and as OldSquiffyBat said, there are dozens of them or to be more precise, at least 26 more than in the article the last time I checked) and to do all this work only to delete most of it in 10 days (when those that can have their name on the ballots are registered). That seems to me like a lot of work when all we have to do is to wait a little more than a week to know who are the official candidates. About self-proclaimed, all the candidates today are self-proclaimed because they said they intend to participate but their candidacy is not officially registered. It doesn't mean that they don't have press coverage. Those chosen to be in the present article have more notability than just press coverage of their candidacy and are the most likely to run. Personally, I think that Corinne Lepage won't drop out but I could be wrong and just ten days, is it so long to wait to be sure? I say Patience. Eleventh1 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. --RJFF (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that making a consensus on criteria would be a pain that is why we could have let any candidate to be in the list if the info is sourced by the main stream media. However reverting the addition of a candidates would suggest that there are some criteria to refuse him. Anyway, if you don't think the point relevant, I will not insist. By the way, will the article include only those 10th or, like in the 2007 article, include all the candidates in different parts (official candidates, drop-out candidates, not enough endorsement candidates ...)?--Lawren00 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider support

[edit]

The list is relevant as it shows the effect of the election (and is sourced as such) and also, if you ust, shows outside intreference. Alternatively the Al Jazeera part can be in an "analysis section, but the support from th enotable names certainly needs to be there.Lihaas (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

[edit]

I added importance and class for this article. This election is very important to the European Union and France, since it will decide future relations with Germany and future situtation of Eurozone. If Left Party wins, according to some news, Greece would go out from the Eurozone, and lots of other things. --Wustenfuchs 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats dubious and synthesis to suggest. Campaign speeches dont man theyd be kicked out. Though its notable as anti-incumbent and suggestion have bbeen made that other left parties will come forth (as in denmark before this)...but i highly doubt any relation for this. Its just anti-incumbency(Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

LAST LINE: Some people saw a risk of manipulating future elections,[31] whereas one prominent blogger felt 'dispossed'.[32]

[edit]

WTF does dispossed mean? 218.103.114.186 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly dubious, ive tagged it for clarification. If nothing comes forth soon we should remove it(Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
I agree the whole sentence is obscure. Maybe the first phrase (which survives) can be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Restore"

[edit]

An anonymous editor keeps saying that Hollande wants to "restore" (rather than resorb) that national debt. I'm not sure whether it's malicious, but it's incorrect and meaningless; feel free to revert on sight. Aridd (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate figure caption

[edit]

This figure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_carte_des_r%C3%A9sultats_du_1er_tour_2012.PNG

... does not have appropriate figure caption. What do the colours mean? 70.31.15.167 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image from the page as it is unclear what it represents. --Racklever (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pinks is Hollande? Should be eASI to verify...though the islandsneed clarification. If anyone speaks duch you can read what it says there.
Its quite clear what the caption indicates for the colours [1](Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
It should be removed because we already have a free file that shows the same thing in more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_French_presidential_election_-_First_round_-_Majority_vote_(Metropolitan_France,_communes).svg --Racklever (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, goo dpoint. Replaced...BUT we have nothing avbout the territories(Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Why is this map mostly blue then ?Eregli bob (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blind revert

[edit]

This blindly reverts all content by an IP saying "undone edits which muddle everything up and which seem to make a big issue out of a non-subject (pov pushing?)" which is a. not AGF and b. against standard practice. Reasons: there are missing cites and clarifications (the campaign section for each is seemingly or); doesnt differentiate first and second round in listing all candidates first round but then not doign the 2nd round one; a candidate name is more neutral and then list the campaigns for each round; results are always at the bottom not the middle/top (which is arbitrary as the reult follows the events before); it restores RESULT images to the wrong section, where it is NOT part of the campaign; it removed content that was added without explanation (it is not POV to state sourced issues on the trail that were relevant and feature the leadign candidate (or any cadidate)); and it undoes a copy edit and tags without discussion, which ends up restoring vague comments and pov on notability as well as contradicting the article title.(Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Problem with wording

[edit]
Many of the issues were similar to that of the National Front, from which Sarkozy gained votes between the 2002 and 2007 election. He further spoke "to those French who stay home, don’t complain when Francois Hollande is elected and regularizes all illegal immigrants and lets foreigners vote."[37]

This statement in our article comes from the source which says:

"Sarkozy pinched much of her father’s vote that year. Jean- Marie Le Pen lost half his votes between 2002 and 2007. Sarkozy got half the defections."

The statement in the source seems okay. Our statement in our article seems to suggest to me anyway that Sarkozy took part in the 2002 election. I've tried to but can't think of a non-copyvio way to reword it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change sarkozy to the party name perhaps?
 Done check it out and see if its better or not?Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

second round election-result

[edit]

Please can it be explained how it was possible for the whole nation to act as though it had a result within minutes of the close of polls? Are the votes somehow counted as they are cast?

No, votes are not counted as they are cast (that would be anti-democratic), it's just statistical analysis. Basically, the way it works is as such:
  • First, private polling companies working for the press (such as Ipsos) conduct surveys throughout the day, asking random people how they voted. This gives a first estimate of the result, but it is not really reliable, especially if the margin is thin.
  • Voting bureaux close at 8pm in big cities, true, but in rural areas and smaller towns they close at 6 or 7. By tracking voting habits across France from previous elections, it is possible to construct a representative sample of the whole country using those bureaux that have closed early. Each polling company thus tracks roughly 200 voting bureaux, and in each of these places they look at the first 100 votes counted. This allows them to have a fairly accurate estimate of the result by 6:30.
  • As voting goes on in big cities, votes are counted elsewhere in France. By 8 o'clock, counting is over in a lot of bureaux, and polling companies use those results to give an even better estimate, which is the one that is announced by the press. Of course, counting goes on, and the final results become available during the night.
So it's not really a result that is given, but an estimate. If in theory those estimates can be proven false, the fact that the results have always been reliable in the past, that they tend to remain consistent throughout the day and that different polling companies tend to come up with similar results (despite using differant samples) make this possibility extremely unlikely in practice.
Hope that helps.
Masorick (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results template

[edit]

I have added the following suggestion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:French_presidential_election,_2012

"This template gives 18,000,438 votes (51.62%) for Hollande 16,869,371 votes (48.38%) for Sarkozy 37,016,982 votes (100%) in total.

However, those 2 figures add up to 34,869,809. The figure of 37,016,982 includes 2,147,173 'Spoilt and null votes'. I suggest amending the 'total' column to 'total valid votes'

Summary of the 21–22 April and 5–6 May 2012 French presidential election result
Candidates Parties 1st round 2nd round
Votes % Votes %
François Hollande Socialist Party (Parti socialiste) PS 10,272,705 28.63 18,000,438 51.62
Nicolas Sarkozy Union for a Popular Movement (Union pour un mouvement populaire) UMP 9,753,629 27.18 16,869,371 48.38
Marine Le Pen National Front (Front national) FN 6,421,426 17.90
Jean-Luc Mélenchon Left Front (Front de gauche) FDG 3,984,822 11.10
François Bayrou Democratic Movement (Mouvement démocrate) MoDem 3,275,122 9.13
Eva Joly Europe Écologie–The Greens (Europe Écologie–Les Verts) EELV 828,345 2.31
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan Arise the Republic (Debout la République) DLR 643,907 1.79
Philippe Poutou New Anticapitalist Party (Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste) NPA 411,160 1.15
Nathalie Arthaud Workers' Struggle (Lutte Ouvrière) LO 202,548 0.56
Jacques Cheminade Solidarity and Progress (Solidarité et Progrès) SP 89,545 0.25
Total valid votes 35,883,209 100 34,869,809 100
Valid votes 35,883,209 98.08 34,869,809 94.20
Spoilt and null votes 701,190 1.92 2,147,173 5.80
Turnout 36,584,399 79.48 37,016,982 80.34
Abstentions 9,444,143 20.52 9,056,183 19.66
Registered voters 46,028,542 46,073,165
Table of results ordered by number of votes received in first round. Official results by Constitutional Council of France.

Source: List of candidates · First round result · Second round result

"

Alekksandr (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second round spoiled votes

[edit]

Why are more than 2 million people bothering to go to the polling places for the second round, only to cast a spoiled or null vote ? Thats more than 5% of the voters. Is there some political point to doing this ? Does it affect the result in any way ?

Also, there doesn't seem to be any information about the voting technology used in France. Do French people vote with little pieces of paper or some computer scheme ? Eregli bob (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the 'spoilt ballot' voters be supporters of Front National, making a political point that they refused to vote for Sarkozy? Alekksandr (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled votes aren't counted in the political process, unfortunately. If we counted them, Hollande was elected with 48% or so, hence he didn't really get a majority. People still do this when they don't feel represented by any candidates, and don't feel like voting for the "least worse". Some parties and voters want the null voted to be counted in the political process, so while it doesn't really count they still use it because they want it to be considered. To answer a comment here, I voted Front National in the first round, and voted null in the second because the two candidates don't represent me and I wanted to make a statement, as did 2 million other voters. But not all null voters come from the Front National. Otherwise, yes, in France people vote with little pieces of paper, with a few exceptions in some towns which use machines, but they're pretty rare and distrusted.--Munin75 (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why bother voting at all ? Is it compulsory to go to the polling place ? Eregli bob (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, voting is not compulsory. Thus attendance gives an indication of the importance of the election for voters. But it's difficult to know why people didn't go voting, so a number of people chose to put a blank or null vote to give a clearer picture to the politicians : "yes I'm involved in the voting process, but none of you are acceptable candidates". Aesma (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg problems

[edit]

This introduced a lot of redundancies and contradictions as in putting something in the first round that was not in the 2nd) (ie- campaign candidates), then it replicated result twice in both with a template missing for the 2nd. And above all its not the standard format...change in large scale needs consensusLihaas (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on French presidential election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French presidential election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature counts for each candidate?

[edit]

I'm surprised to not see here, or be able to find (given very meager French skills), a list of how many signatures each candidate got in the 2012 election. I'm told the list of parrainages who sign is public, but I only see what looks like an official list of candidates. Can someone find the numbers and post them? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the publication of the names of signatories is new for the 2017 election, so that wouldn't be made public. Similarly, I think the Constitutional Council didn't publish the numbers of signatures in past years – only a final list of validated candidates. Mélencron (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to France election: Who will endorse Marine Le Pen? - BBC News, Last month, France's Constitutional Council rejected Ms Le Pen's request to switch back to anonymous endorsements, which prevailed until the law was changed in the 1970s. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct; here's the list. There are 500 listed for all validated candidates. Mélencron (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added a link to a description of that process. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map

[edit]

Is there a reason that this article's infobox uses the communes instead of the departments? I personally think we should use the department photo, since most other french presidential election articles use that as a the main photo. Also, it's extremely difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMGrund (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_French_presidential_election&oldid=1196615039"