# Template talk:French elections

WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Why should this template not include Presidential elections under the Third Republic? Not including them would seem to imply that there was no presidential elections before 1965, which is false. Tazmaniacs 12:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC) They should also include, IMO, Presidential elections under the Fourth Republic. An election is an election, universal suffrage is another thing. Did you know, by the way, that the election of the President at universal suffrage has not always been considered democratic? And that José Bové proposed that, if he was elected (that was before the first round), he would be the last President of the Fifth Republic? Your assertion backs-up a POV that only universal suffrage elections are "real" elections. The template is not called "French elections by universal suffrage"... Tazmaniacs 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but the standard for these 200+ election templates it to only include nationwide elections. Number 57 12:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So? That is not a very strong argument... Tazmaniacs 14:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to reverse, and rather not have a silly edit-war on this, but really: why would Presidential elections under the Third Republic and Presidential elections under the Fourth Republic not be included here? Saying "we agreed on 200 templates" to not do so is not a relevant argument IMHO. If we're going to talk about "presidential elections" in France, well, it is very misleading to claim that there was none before that the president was elected on universal suffrage, something the French people owe to De Gaulle. This probably wouldn't sound to you strange if you knew how much the institutions of the Fifth Republic have been contested in the past (Mitterrand called it a "permanent coup d'etat") and today (all — I mean all — candidates today pretend to renovate the institutions, going for some kind of so-called "Sixth Republic"). There is many way to vote, and a president elected by "high electors" is still a president. His role was different then? But that does makes him less "democratically elected"? Anyway, all of this debate is beside the point: there is no reason to reserve the template which include presidential elections to presidents of the Fifth Republic — who were not always elected by the people... There was a president in France during the Second Republic, and his election was kind of important... There is no reason to exclude any of them, not that I think of. Tazmaniacs 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about politics of South Africa, but I thought that universal suffrage was not around during the apartheid. So why is that Template:South African elections included here, is that "nation-wide" ? I'm sure you'll find many others examples. What about "universal suffrage" without women vote? What about manipulated elections? Etc. etc. Tazmaniacs 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
See Separate Representation of Voters Act, and tell me why those elections are included in the template. Tazmaniacs 00:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that these elections were open to the public, albeit a limited number. Presidential elections in the third republic were not open to the public, and from that it is possible to argue that they weren't really elections but just parliamentary votes. Would you include a vote of confidence in a new government as an "election for Prime Minister", because it's effectively the same thing. Number 57 08:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I'm with Number 57 on this. —Nightstallion (?) 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"Possible to argue that they weren't really elections but just parliamentary votes"??? Really? So you are claiming that only universal suffrage elections qualify as elections? You are also upholding the point of view that only an election made at direct universal suffrage is really a (democratic) election. Make no mistake: voting for the President at direct universal suffrage in France is not any more controversed (despite Bové's remark at the end of his campaign). But it has been for a long time. And claiming that indirect universal suffrage is not an election is a misunderstanding of public law & Constitutional law.
Of course presidential elections during the Third Republic were elections; you overlook the fact that the President was elected by the Sovereign of France, that is, the People. You may think (as most do — and as I do myself, but that's beside the point) that direct universal suffrage is more democratic than indirect universal suffrage. Others have argued to the contrary that this was Bonapartism and thus anti-democratic (as it gave too much power to one person). But a template is not the place to take position on that, neither to discuss on the pros & cons of presidentialism, parliamentarism or a mixed presidential-parliamentary regime.
Concerning the "vote of confidence", precisely it is not an "election" because it has not got this status. Whereas presidential elections at indirect universal suffrage do have this status. At the end, you are claiming that only direct elections are elections, although they may be carried out under census suffrage or exclude the majority of the population (Blacks, women, etc.) Whereas you consider that indirect forms of elections are not elections. Under what grounds are you making this novel distinction? Should I add that "indirect universal suffrage" is more democratic than census suffrage — since in the first, the People is Sovereign, whereas in the second, the People is restricted to those who pay the census — but that it seems you would consider only the second to be "democratic"?
Note that indirect universal suffrage is still in force for the elections of the Senators. Would you say now that French senators are not elected? And the US president is also elected through Indirect election; so he is not elected after all?Tazmaniacs 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would say French Senators are not elected - that is why they are not on the template! The American Presidential elections is totally different - a vote for the elector is de facto a vote for the President as that is the electors' only purpose. This is totally different to a local election, where a vote for a councillor is based on the councillors political actions rather than his potential future vote for the Senate. Number 57 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I rather agree with Tazmaniacs on this. There were presidential elections in the third and fourth republics, and it's totally absurd to say that they were not elections because the electors were members of parliament, rather than voters. The Holy Roman Empire still had elections, even though only seven or eight unelected princes could vote and, in the early modern period, it was nearly always a unanimous vote for the son of the last emperor (or the current emperor). Popes are elected by a conclave of cardinals, and nobody disputes that those are elections. Electing presidents of the French republic before 1965 was no different from numerous other elections, and I don't see why they shouldn't be on the template. Just beyond that, the template is for finding articles about elections, isn't it? As it stands, it is very difficult to find the articles about elections under the third and fourth republic. For that reason alone I think they should be included here. john k (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that the president of the Republic and the Senate is elected. One can simply read the French constitution: it's an (indirect) election. Doing otherwise is, in my humble opinion, an original work rather than the use of existing source by an encyclopaedia. I am in favour of including any general election in this template. Captain frakas (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No reactions? If nobody disagree, I'll edit the template tomorrow hence it will show missing elections. I'll use a typographic code to distinguish direct election and indirect elections. But the current template is too much incoherent to be kept as it is, in my humble opinion. Captain frakas (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your original comments. I disagree. There was a consensus when these templates were created not to include non-public elections. I've never seen an argument that's convinced me as to why this should change. The template currently shows actual elections. Mixing non-public votes and public votes would be incoherent - the template seems to be fine as it is. Number 57 18:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Number, thanks you for your answer. I am not sure to understand what do you mean by public vote, can you explain me please? Do you mean direct suffrage? Captain frakas (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Number 57 11:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, why is the 1958 presidential election shown in the French template? Captain frakas (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Must have snuck in at some point. Now removed - thanks for spotting it! Number 57 11:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome sir. If this is the rule, then, the template should be headed Direct Elections and referendums in France instead of Elections and referendums in France. But there is other incoherence (read indirect elections) in the template with the rule that you state. Captain frakas (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "Direct" is needed. It's implicit by the content. Which other ones are problematic though? Number 57 20:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the template, but this is notably lacking the French Senate elections. Could someone more familiar add a row for them? Thanks! Seleucus (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Senate elections. I was looking for the Senate elections, and was surprised that they weren't in there, seeing as Wikipedia has articles on them. The point of the template is to be useful and aid navigation, and I think it is useful to have them - although I won't add indirect presidential elections, since that seems to be more contentious. The body of opinion here (4 to 2, I think, excluding me) also seems to be a bit in favour of being inclusive here. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there some kind of policy backing this notion that they don't include indirect elections? There seems to be no consensus directly favouring User:Number 57's reverts here. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It was agreed many years ago (when these templates were first created) that they would not include indirect elections, which is why (for example) Senate elections are not included on {{Dutch elections}} but instead have their own template ({{Dutch Senate elections}}). I would have suggested that something similar should be created here, but it seems there is already one (i.e. {{French Senate}}. Cheers, Number 57 16:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you link me to that agreement? It strikes me that it might be worthwhile to see if there were consensus to revise it, seeing as opinion seems to be somewhat split here and to a lesser extent over Dutch elections.
More to the point, what do you think ought to be done by way of a aiding navigation for the indirect presidential elections - e.g. if I created some articles for those of the Third Republic, which I was considering, actually? Do you think there should be a separate template, French indirect presidential elections? Dionysodorus (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find the discussion (it would have been 8-9 years ago), but there is plenty of evidence that the consensus exists through edits like these ones by other editors: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
The best thing to do would be to create a separate template for the presidential elections - we have this for a few countries that have entirely indirect elections or a mix (e.g. {{German presidential elections}}, {{Turkish presidential elections}} etc). Number 57 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

## Alsace referendum

There will be a referendum in Alsace on 7 April 2013, deciding wether to unite the departments of Alsace.  Liam987(talk) 18:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This template is for national-level elections only. If there is a template for elections in the Alsace, then it should be included on there. Cheers, Number 57 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

## Corsica

Should a different section be added for Corsica? The current way doesn't seem very practical to me, even more so when we will have several of these elections.--Aréat (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It just needs "(Corsica)" removing to bring it in line with other countries' templates (e.g. {{Italian elections}}), so I've done that. Number 57 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a bit weird to include, honestly. It's not a national election like all of the others in the table, even if it was an off-year – it might be appropriate in a Corsican elections template, but probably not here. Mélencron (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a regional election though, so it would be odder to not have the link there, as otherwise readers may think there were no regional elections in 2015. Number 57 14:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait, sorry, did you mean to say 2017? Mélencron (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I did. Number 57 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Is it really a regional election, though? --Aréat (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I mean, it's an intermediate election that's part of the same sequence (2015/2021), but I don't think it belongs here as it's not a national election. Mélencron (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
None of them in that row are national elections though :) But seriously, it's part of the regional election cycle and we'd be remiss to omit it – I'd again point at the Italian template as a way of doing it (or {{Malaysian elections}}). Number 57 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two points here.
1) There should be consistency per country what to include in a national template (the German one for example doesn't directly link to all state elections). So for France, the 2017 Corsican one should be included here, although not all French Polynesian ones are either (there's a separate template: Template:French Polynesian elections), so imho this should be reviewed by someone who knows about all the types of French entities, elections and reforms throughout history.
2) If included in a national template, it should imho be clear what the specific election is about (i.e. how it differs from the other ones). So either have a separate row, or indicate between brackets. Clearly, Number 57 and I disagree here :-) I did this for Belgium but was reverted by him. For example the Italian template also really fails in that regard, in my opinion.
Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Separate rows for individual administrative divisions is a no-no, otherwise some templates will quickly balloon to unreadable proportions. And adding stuff in brackets makes templates overly complex. The row is for regional elections, and the Corsican election is a regional election, so I don't see what's not clear. The German template doesn't link to individual state election articles because there are no articles for German state elections, 2017 or suchlike, in which case it would – IMO we currently largely have consistency. Number 57 10:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Is the french version, (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Palette_Scrutins_en_France_sous_la_Cinqui%C3%A8me_R%C3%A9publique), such a non-non ?--Aréat (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say so. Far too large and complex to be easily comprehendable by readers. Number 57 12:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course I don't advocate for huge navigation templates (like this Austrian one), but in my opinion it is a good compromise to note between brackets if there is an election that differs from the other elections in what body/bodies is/are concerned in that article. And in certain cases (if there are one or two special cases with a larger number of elections for them), a separate row is an appropriate solution. SPQRobin (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

## Indirect presidential elections

I'm a bit puzzled by what is claimed to be the standard for not including all presidential elections on this template. Where is this standard? ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a convention that we've had since these templates were developed. You can see it in practice at examples like {{Czech elections}}, {{German elections}} or {{Turkish elections}} where the indirect elections are not included. It's also the reason why we have separate templates for {{Israeli presidential elections}}, {{Italian presidential elections}} etc rather than them being included in the main election template. Cheers, Number 57 09:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
But these extra templates are for countries with a different electoral system than France. Right now there is no way to easily navigate to the only four articles on indirect presidential elections in France. It would be silly to have an extra template just for them. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The system of electing the president has changed over time, as it has in the case of the Czech Republic, Germany and Turkey. We already have {{Presidential elections in France}}. Number 57 12:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I see. Still, I don't think consistency for the sake of consistency is necessary. We're only talking about four links here, which would allow us to get rid of {{Presidential elections in France}} and reduce redundancy. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Only having four links would be misleading as there were 18 indirect elections. Including them risks creep – once indirect presidential elections are included, many of which are simply parliamentary votes, then someone will argue for elections for the position of Prime Minister. And then Speaker. Hence I think it's best to stick with the convention that these templates only cover elections where the public voted.
Separate to this, I think there's a debate to be had around whether indirect elections are actually worthy of individual articles given that they are often just parliamentary votes. Having them all in a single article like French presidential elections under the Third Republic (which is already linked to) is probably preferable; perhaps this could be expanded (and renamed) to cover the other indirect votes and then all of the articles would be directly linked anyway using the existing link at the bottom of this template. Number 57 12:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes that's what I'm advocating here: that we link once to the French presidential elections under the Third Republic as I did in my edit [8], but that it also be shown in the chronology. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
(e/c - amending my comments above) That link already exists at the bottom of the template. Including it in the chronology would be a creep issue for me (because it is effectively including the indirect elections in the year lines, which is what we've always avoided doing) and I wouldn't want to see it there. Number 57 12:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
But that link doesn't contain the elections under the Fourth Republic nor the first election under the Fifth Republic. I understand your concern about creeping, and I would oppose adding every election by parliament for every country, but this is a case where an exception can be made, especially since it wouldn't overcrowd the navbox and would get rid of the mostly empty other navbox. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll create an article covering them all tomorrow when I'm back home and have access to a laptop, and will replace the existing link at the bottom. Number 57 13:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I guess it would be fine to lump Third and Fourth Republic elections together, although that might result in a very long article full of tables (especially the 1953 election which went through 13 rounds!). However, the first Fifth Republic election was not akin to a parliamentary vote at all and should be included on its own. Almost 80,000 people voted in that election. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we can start adding in others countries templates the indirect elections of higher house which are elected by sometime hundreds of thousands of local councilors.--Aréat (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I've created List of indirect presidential elections in France with all of the indirect elections included and changed the link on the template. I included the 1958 election as there was barely any text in the article itself (and copied the useful content to the list). This also means there's now no need for the separate template, so I've redirected it here. Number 57 14:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work. You were right to merge the smaller articles into one list. I'd still like to see a placeholder between the 1848 and 1965 election to show that a president was still being elected in between. It could be "..." or "indirect elections" or anything else. What would you accept? ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have anything there. Number 57 15:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I still think we do. "..." is unintrusive and show something has happened in between. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"..." is usually used to show when a line is incomplete, not that there weren't any elections. Having it there would only serve to create confusion IMO (and probably lead to editors attempting to add the 'missing' years. Best to leave it as it's been for the last decade. Number 57 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
From the edit history, many editors have been trying to add the 'missing' years for the last decade anyway. I actually find it more confusing not to add anything, since it makes it seems that no president were elected into office until 1965, as if the Second Empire had lasted much longer than it did. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$chi (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)