In this type of ballot, any candidate having received the votes of at least 12.5% of those registered (and not the votes) is qualified for a second round. If the high participation announced therefore increases, on paper, the probability of triangular situations is not the only parameter to be taken into account.
In the context of a legislative election in France, unless a candidate is elected in the first round (by more than 50% of the votes cast, and a minimum of 25% registered), a second round is organized. The two leading candidates are not the only ones able to hold their own since – as for the cantonal elections – the second round is open to any other candidate benefiting from the vote of at least one eighth of those registered (12.5%). A situation which contrasts with municipal and regional elections, for which the threshold for maintaining the second round refers to the votes cast (that is to say the votes, and not the registrations on the lists).
The theory
This rule has a simple consequence: the higher the participation rate in a legislative election – in other words, the more registered voters there are – the greater the possibility of seeing candidates reach 12.5% of voters.
Let’s take the fictitious example of a constituency with a 50% participation rate. If the RN reaches 35%, the New Popular Front (NFP) 25% and the candidate of the presidential majority 20%, only the RN and the NFP will be in the second round, since the third party only received the votes of 10 % of registrants. With a participation of 65% (a rate which could be reached during the upcoming election, according to the institutes’ projections) and the same scores, we arrive at a triangular, since the third candidate records, here, the votes of 13% of the registered (equivalent to 20% of the votes of 65% registered).
The practice
So much for the theory. However, in practice, high turnout in an election may well reflect a plebiscite for one or two candidates, leaving the rest of the contenders in the lurch. In fact, for the legislative elections of the last forty years, we observe a weak correlation between participation and the number of triangulars.
Thus, in 1993, there were 15 triangulars for 68.9% participation compared to 105 triangular situations after the first round in 1997 (79 after Republican withdrawals), for almost identical participation (67.9%). The difference was explained by the first breakthrough of the National Front in 1997until now confined to around or below 10%.
In 2007, with 60.4% of participants, there were 12 triangular situations (only one at the end of the withdrawals) while, five years later, with a participation rate lower by 3 points, the situations where three candidates were in the running at the end of the first round amounted to 46 (36 after withdrawals). Explanation: in 2007, the capture of right-wing votes by the Sarkozyist lists had sidelined the Lepenist lists.
Triangulars when there is the extreme right
In short: if strong participation is a necessary condition for the multiplication of triangular situations, it is not a sufficient condition. And it is indeed the popularity of three competing political currents, and the commitment of the supporters of these currents to go to the polls, which are then decisive.
In France, it is above all when the extreme right gains a little (or a lot) more weight in public opinion – as is the case in 2024 – that triangular situations emerge.
There is little doubt that we will find the RN in a very large number of constituencies for the second round. It remains to be seen whether the logic of “Republican” withdrawal in favor of the best-placed candidate will be pushed to limit the number of far-right deputies. In view of the speech made in the presidential camp or at LR, designating the New Popular Front as an “extreme” in the same way (or even worse) than the RN, we can doubt it.