GOLIKEHELLMACHINE: both in the UK and in france, the NYT has covered the lack of "absolute majority" as being equivalent to gridlock, which, like, sort of *is* the case in the united states because our congressional structure is stupid as balls, but is not actually the case everywhere

both in the UK and in france, the NYT has covered the lack of "absolute majority" as being equivalent to gridlock, which, like, sort of *is* the case in the united states because our congressional structure is stupid as balls, but is not actually the case everywhere

Honestly, what kind of bananas frame this story like this? Is shit serious or not, fucken freaks?

Their readers are still liberal but they are a right wing paper and want fascists to win.

Those readers need to stop doing that.

This is usually the case in countries that have more than two political parties. You know, real democracies. Is not being aware of politics in other countries a requirement for a political journalist at the NYT? Sweden hasn't had a party with absolute majority since WW2.

Even within Congress there's factions within the major parties that can cause gridlock with an on-paper majority, and there's nothing structurally gridlock-y in the House if there were a robust third party you could negotiate with.

Wait, lack of absolute majority in the UK ? Also, tbh they're kind of right, irt paralysis post Fr. elections (source: I'm French)

/Edit: "That's headline sounds kind of right irt paralysis, et."

i don't think "gridlock" in france means quite the same thing as it does here? over here, it means practically nothing passes both chambers.

The thing is that the new government may have a hard time "governing" thanks to a tool called "motion de censure" Long story short, the opposition (in this case the NR) may flood the zone with this

Motion de censure en France — Wikipédiafr.wikipedia.org

* parliamentary tool ^

Keep in mind that the NR is the single party with the most votes. All others blocks are coalitions (the president's and the lefts), meaning that they *could* be divided

* the most votes AND seats (I hate this picture...)

Right? I am so not a French Politics Knower but when they say this outcome spells “chaos” they just mean normal “let’s form a government no not THAT government” parliamentary shenanigans, right? Like the usual stuff? Then eventually you get a government? Like always?

France politics doesn't really have that much history of political cooperation between ideologically different camps . So this is def different . To now form a gov both centre and left need to give stuff up. Will they ? Not sure. PM should be a centre-left person not leftwing or centre.

How fucking difficult is it to include that it took quite a bit of cooperation from everyone from left to the still sane centre-right people to just get to that gridlock. It was the only scenario to prevent a fascist government . Guess NYT doesn't think no functioning gov > fascist gov but its true

It is entirely possible that Macron will not be able to negotiate to a majority government in this situation. He's been governing without a majority since 2022

*looks at the recent dutch govt which took nearly a year to form*

Post