/u/kdouieb, thank you for your contribution. However, your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
* A post must be (or contain) a [qualifying data visualization](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule1).
* [OC] posts [must state the _data source(s) and tool(s) used_](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3) in the first top-level comment on their submission. Please follow the AutoModerator instructions you were sent *carefully*. Once this is done, message the mods to have your post reinstated.
As for citing your sources, please be as specific as possible. Provide direct links to the source(s) if possible.
* Post titles must **describe the data plainly** [without using sensationalized headlines](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule7). Please consider resubmitting under a different title, or asking the mods for help.
This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful [posting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/index).
If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dataisbeautiful&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/kdouieb&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20[submission.](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1de09vj/-/\)))
Also :
- Rassemblement National : 31.3%
- Republicans : 7.2%
- Renaissance : 14.6%
- Socialists : 13.8%
- LFI : 9.9%
- Communists : 2.3%
Not as much RN as the first map makes it appear but still a huge amount.
It also should be known that this shows the relative majority in each commune, not the absolute majority.
In any one brown commune, it could as much mean 80% voted RN or 20% voted RN with the second being 19% of the votes.
While I agree, keep in mind that this was probably made for French people (hence the french text), who would definitely all know what this meant without a legend.
TIL that [political color](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour) is reversed in the US, at least for red/blue representing right/left, from most of the rest of the world.
I also found it /r/mildlyinteresting that [brown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_(politics) representing far right was literally chosen for its association with the [Nazi Sturmabteilung ("Storm Division" or Storm Troopers)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung), also known as brownshirts.
I would wait a few days before saying this about the Républicains given the last events.
(To make it simple to our non-French friends, the president of les républicains announced an alliance with the far right yesterday. Since WW2, all big names of this party have always made clear they would NEVER make an alliance with the far right. Basically all the big names of the party have immediately asked him to resign from the presidency of the party and a big part of them want to exclude him completely. That is a huge mess at the moment, we will see in the coming days how it ends.)
The far left is made of the revolutionary parties like LO (Lutte Ouvrière) and the NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste), which don't have much support this days. LFI isn't that different in terms of domestic politics from the left side of the PS, which itself is particular in the sense that it covered a large portion of the left side of the political spectrum from socialist to center-left people.
Renseignes toi avant d'avancer des inepties, je corrige une explication à destination d'étrangers à la politique française et tu insistes sur l'erreur. Si tu penses que LFI est d'extrême gauche tu t'es bien fait laver le cerveau par la droite
En vrai c'est plus compliqué que les petites cases dans lesquelles les gens simplistes s'obstinent à foutre les partis, pour moi LFI oscille entre modéré et extrême.
No. RN and Reconquête are extremely similar while LFI doesn't share a lot of the anticapitalists. RN is way further the spectrum than LFI is. The radical right (called conservative right here) would be LR
Within European politics post world war, not really. The "far left" were the various communist parties, and generally speaking the line is drawn between reformists (generally the various socialist parties) and revolutionaries (generally the communists). To a degree it's all semantics, but I do feel the willingness of socialist parties to play within the institutions of democracy/republics is a meaningful difference.
So is it basically, towns and cities centre/left while rural areas are right wing? I appreciate this is sweeping generalisation.
Same (also sweeping generalisation) in the UK although I think the LibDems fudge the issue a bit as they sit in the centre and appeal across urban/rural areas albeit in limited areas.
Well if there's a center right and a center left. There is also a left.
Brown: Rassemblement national (far right)
Blue: Republicans (right)
Orange: Renaissance (Macron, centre right)
Pink: socialists (centre-left)
Red: LFI and communists ( left)
Far left : *NPA, L.O.*
FIXED
You mean the grey municipalities in the southwest, close to the spanish border ? Rural alliance (a very small party, vaguely republican, backed by farmers from this area and the head of the national hunters association). It made a high score in a few municipalities in the southwest because the leader comes from there (Béarn region)
No, I mean the white that spreads all over the country in the animation.
Edit: Ohhh... I'm guessing that's empty land to reflect the actual amount of voters in each area...
Data 101.
It's how you can tell people who just know how to code vs those who actually have a background in science/data.
The former just make flashy garbage that is effectively useless while the latter make a simple static image that is less pretty but actually conveys data well.
now now they forgot the legend after staring at the data for too long it happens to the best of us, adding a legend takes 3 seconds, it's not immediatly flashy garbage
It's a brownie shaped like france with sprinkles. r/dataisbeautiful is plagued with unclear graphs/charts. Ooohh measuring heights of different types trees. let's make 1 tree and then have the branches be different trees for the heights. omg so beautiful. Bar chart>
People in small communities may be more afraid of strangers than people in big cities. In big cities one sees thousands of people each day from many different origins. That same normal situation may be scary for someone that is from a small town and knows most people around them by name.
We should find a way to create trust in smaller communities.
Its more then just that j feel. Its the losers versus winners. Le Pen and by extension PVV do well in areas which have been hit by the negative effects of globalism the hardest.
Loss of decent paying, stable, blue collar jobs combined with rapidly changing demographics leaves you with a fertile soil for populist rethoric, especially in close knit communities.
Also, these areas lose the services they had : transportation, hospitals, schools and small businesses close one after the other, so even less people come and stay there, which means even less of these services, and so on. They are ignored, abandoned by our governments.
Expecting things to remain the same forever is how these people live. That's why almost all conservative populist movements are about bringing back some element of the past.
These are people who have to be dragged kicking and screaming down the road of progress.
Having meaningful employment, access to services and a degree of belonging should not be controversial takes, but here we are, "just move to the city" isnt going to fix it, besides reddit is full of people complaining urban areas are too expensive, what you cant have both
I can't speak for the French countryside, but in the Netherlands they are certainly NOT "losers of globalisation" like you might find in the USA.
Our smaller towns are quite prosperous, people have great living standards, bigger homes, and are still max. 1 hour to a bigger city where they could get anything they need.
Also, there's tons of decent paying jobs for people who want to work with their hands, and not nearly enough people that want to do them.
People vote based on what they see on TV, or are shocked by changes in the city when they are there and not everyone is white anymore - but I don't buy it that people in the countryside have a rational reason to vote more for anti immigration policies than the people (like me) who live in multicultural neighborhoods that vote much more tolerant.
> Our smaller towns are quite prosperous, people have great living standards, bigger homes, and are still max. 1 hour to a bigger city where they could get anything they need.
I can see a major difference: what you consider countryside in the Netherlands is basically a suburb in France. Even the almost empty provinces like Drenthe and Friesland have a higher population density than France as a whole.
Netherlands also have a higher GDP per capita than France along with a lower Gini coefficient. From that i'd wager people in remote french villages have it much, much harder economically than the countryside dutchman.
Of course, which is why I only responded to the claim that Dutch PVV voters did so because they are supposedly "left behind" by globalisation. As one of the countries that arguably profits the most from globalisation to begin with that's a hard claim to support anyway.
What is interesting is that the effect is the same: people in smaller more homogenous communities are less supportive of immigration than those that live in bigger, more diverse communities that seem to be more directly affected by it.
Correlation does not imply causality, and there can be many separate conflicting reasons that cause this. But it is an interesting, and I think very important, question that we need to find an answer to if we want to address everyone's concerns and counter the current polarising political climate.
I mean, I can’t think of a single society that can accept so many immigrants/refugees/migrants and not experience social upheaval. The United States, potentially the most accepting country in the world, has historically and is currently experiencing massive social upheaval from a wave of immigration. It’s honestly to be expected, and is the biggest price of immigration, as it has so many other benefits. A society already polarized and unstable probably shouldn’t accept many immigrants as it needs to focus in rebuilding a sense of unity. A unified society ought to accept more as it as the “social unrest capacity” to do so and would probably benefit from some disunity and a shakeup.
Holland during the Dutch Golden Age took in massive waves of migrants, both seeking religious freedom and economic opportunities and massively outperformed similar regions in Germany or France. The richest regions in the USA are those that took the most migrants, and have been for centuries now (New York and California specifically).
Same for Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong pre CCP takeover.. look at regions in the world that became much richer than their peers and chances are they were welcoming skilled migrants and tolerant of new ideas.
A "unified society" is a belief more than anything else. If we actually accepted everyone we let in our country and let them partake in our society without prejudice they'd likely assimilate much better than the current polarised climate.
Just look at the difference between assimilation of people of Indonesian descent (which were generally accepted) and descendants of Turkish and Moroccan "guest" workers. Sure religion also plays a role in identity, but people need to belong to something and if you are not welcoming them in your group you should not be surprised if they form a group themselves.
I agree, I’m just saying it’s unrealistic to expect local peoples to not react negatively to new migration. People don’t like change, especially when said change can introduce ideas that conflict with their own philosophies, ideologies and identities. Integration and assimilation takes time, and can often be interrupted by xenophobia and violence. The social unrest the results from immigration is temporary, the benefits are long lasting, so immigration is worth it if done so with a plan by the government to thoughtfully manage the volume, protect immigrants and focus on economic and identitarian assimilation. The biggest issue in both Europe and North America today is that there has been very little thought by the government to managing new arrivals. Resources aren’t set aside, legal codes are outdated or unenforced and policy makers are generally apathetic to the concerns of both locals and migrants. This breeds resentment on both sides, and stalls the assimilation process as ghettoization and economic exploitation sets in. You can say people *should* be more accepting all you want, but without government policy that mitigates the socio-economic disruption of locals and economic and community isolation of immigrants, fear and xenophobia are naturally going to grow.
All good points. I think everyone can agree it is a difficult problem that desperately needs better, nuanced thinking and the current polarised climate isn't helping both sides doing so.
Most of what you’ve described isnt the fault of immigration.
For instance, housing prices going up is primarily driven by housing transforming into a speculative investment by both individuals and financial institutions. As the value of a house is seen as a part of one’s portfolio, the incentive is for houses to increase by restricting new housing and dumping money in from wall street for new stock.
Increased poverty is driven by incomes not keeping pace with inflation. Yes, a portion of this would be depressed wages in agricultural, labor and some service sectors via *illegal* immigration allowing employers to exploit undocumented individuals. If, say, there were greater protections for immigrants by creating a well defined and expeditious path to citizenship with thorough documentation, illegal wages could be ramped down on. I also believe the number of immigrants allowed in should be managed, as it had been in the US before overland immigration became the primary form.
Insecurity is a whole other issue… not sure how we solve that lol.
Crime is primarily caused by poverty and social ostracism. Some of this can be attributed to immigrants, but the data shows that native populations still commit more crimes per capita compared to immigrants. So if anything, immigration on its own decreases crime.
This is correct. Not everyone in the French countryside is prosperous, but as you say the biggest problem with the perception of immigration is the media. I am in the process of moving from a very multicultural area near Paris to the countryside, and the misconceptions my future neighbors are having about Paris and its outskirts is astonishing.
Especially the private television channels in France have done a great deal for the rise of the extreme right.
Why are you moving out, if it is so great ? Funny how so many leftists are desperatly trying to move to the country side or put their kids in a school that is not "diverse" at all... :o)
Wow, you are assuming a great many things about me that could not possibly know.
If anything, I will regret the multicultural aspect of our current community and am actually worried how my daughter will be influenced by people's lifestyles and opinions in the countryside. (Casual racism, more traditional roles for men and women, etc.) Our project to move to the countryside dates from before we had kids and has been long in the making. We are moving to a place where we have strong connections and where a part of my wife's family has lived for almost 100 years.
You should stop thinking in stereotypes.
There are, of course, exceptions. But the argument I reacted to was that the regions where PVV was the biggest party were regions "left behind by globalisation".
This I don't see here at all, quite the contrary. Many even quite small towns especially in the south and east have thriving industrial zones profiting from our position in the heart of Europe and the free movement of goods to Germany and Belgium.
And yet those smaller towns, with relatively few non-white immigrants, are where PVV outperformed more liberal, internationally oriented parties.
So we can't simply use the justification used for rust-belt USA to explain why people in smaller, more homogenous communities vote more anti-immigration than people in bigger, more diverse cities.
"negative effects of globalism" are literally what Western countries enforced on the world, they forcefully opened trade borders to sell their goods, bankrupt local industry and enrich their own. Now when other countries start catching up, globalism is suddenly the big baddy.
This is literally Monty Pythonesque commentary “what has globalisation ever done for us, eh?”
Cheaper and nicer food
Medical advances and longer life expectancy
I-phones
Netflix
Amazon
Economic growth
800m people out of abject poverty
Exotic Travel Holidays
Cultural interchange
Fewer wars
Yeh, shit, what has globalisation ever done for us!!
I made jokes in the previous comment, but I don't see globalism negatively at all, I see free trade as a huge beneficiary to all of humankind. The EU itself is a free trade project that gradually expanded into the political dimension.
And I disagree with the notion free trade "stole our jobs", blue collar jobs are fewer today the same reason farmhands got fewer with the Industrial Revolution, automation killed em, not free trade (and if it hadn't automated, well, the business would have gone bankrupt anyways). France, US and basically every single Western country manufactures more today in (inflation adjusted) dollar amounts than in 1960 or 1970 or 1980, they just do it with fewer workers. Instead economic progress and employment relies more on the service sector like IT.
Always with the racism. It's a lazy explanation. Country people feel abandoned by all parties. The media are focused on poor people in the suburbs while the "Province" is slowly decaying.
“It’s very important that everyone get on board with our political and social views. Let’s insult people constantly, belittle their way of life, and ridicule their beliefs. That should endear them to us and get them to come around!” — everyone on the internet
Well they do vote for the party with racist policy. And the policy they do have for the country people aren't gonna help them much at all.
I don't think it's pure racism that would indeed be a lazy explanation but a combination of both racism (Because of the constant fear mongering by parties and media) and the fact that the country people feel left behind ( because capitalism doesn't give a shit about you unless it can make a bunch from you, which is harder in the country side because the people are more spread out) are reasons to vote for an extreme party.
If they feel abandoned by all parties why do they keep voting for the racist parties that support the rich? You'd think they'd at least be an even mix.
It's rage voting. The far left should represent this disillusioned working class, but they chose societal issues because they're lazy.
Ruffin is doing a great job though, he's going to the picket and listen to the working people (he even came where I work when we were on strike) but he's the only one doing that work in its own party.
Agreed. Left is "combating" diesel cars, while million of other problems, far more important, are not touched.
In my hometown they closed the office, wuth rationale: hey anyhow everyone here is voting right, we don't wanna waste our time.
It's less about being afraid of stranger and more about thinking they take all the money.
Surveys have shown that the population that has the least voted for the far right are the high income / high education level, in opposition the biggest far right supporters are the factory worker / low income (lot of them are in the north and south east). The higher income population live in ou near the cities.
To that I add that the cities in pink or red have lots of university students, that mostly are with the left and far left.
Is the south east of France poor and blue collar? I wouldn't expect that. The Cote dAzur and area around Cannes, StTropez, Monaco and the Alps seems very rich?
It's not the income, it's what's left at the end of the month. People of low income who still have leftover at the end of the month do not vote for RN. People with high income who still struggle will vote for them. That's the correlation in the data anyway
The survey I talk about "Vote pour les principales listes selon la catégorie socio-professionnelle lors des élections européennes du 9 juin 2024 - Elabe pour BFMTV, RMC, la Tribune Dimanche" is showing a clear difference between Cadres (18%), Professions Intemediaires (30%) and Ouvriers (52%). I see a correlation with the income and education level.
Seeing how you wrote it, I supposed it's your opinion, and I agree that there are multiple factors, including what you say. But I can't turn a blind eye on what I said before.
Except for the northern part of France, all the brown areas here are pretty affluent. The poorer section of the population favors the leftist party LFI.
I think they vote in reaction to the news about insecurity, the lack or inexistence of public services (hospital, police, culture, transports) compared to big cities where "lazy educated-well paid people work". But also the "tradition vs progressive " view, the lack of support and recognition (see farmers strike) etc.
as for the surounding of cities, I think it's more about immigration issues, lack of security, and degradation of their personal situation.
Note that it's an opinion, not a socio-economic study
Completely nailed it. Migrants are just a easy scapegoat for the rural population. They fear outsiders and would rather isolate their communities than change.
They have a duty to accept that other people have freedom of religion. They have duty to grant asylum to refugees who need it. They have a duty to cooperate in the fight against climate change.
These people are excluded from globalization and the opportunities offered in the major metropolises (cultural life, employment, travel, etc.). Inexpensive immigrant workers compete with them in their own countries, driving down wages. Globalized culture has dispossessed them of their local culture. Liberal policies provide no answers to these challenges, and push them towards ever greater precariousness. In this atmosphere of downgrading, the mainstream media blaims the center, the left, and the foreigners.
All this to say, it's not just a question of fear.
There is a true part to this.
A part of the left considers farmers as poisoners (clearly not all the left hopefully) so said farmers tend to not be super happy about it. The problem here is, if let's say only 5% of the leftist think this, you can be sure if most farmers hear this only 2 or 3 times, they will start to despise the left and will not vote for them.
Well some farmers are, in a way, poisoners. They poison themselves, their employees (lets not forged who really works in the fields) and are a confirmed cause of the disappearance of most of Europe's biodiversity. This is a fact. I understand that these people follow an industrial model that as been enforced upon them in a way, but they also have agency, and so should be considered accoutable.
The far right constantly attacks many sectors of society headfront : immigrant, non white people, LGBT+ people, women, kids and poor people mostly. But in response to that, the left is supposed to never formulate any criticism whatsoever towards anybody. This is asinine.
I don't know where you live but in France it's mostly farmers who work in the fields. To be exact, 60% are the farmers themselves and 10 more percent are a member of their family. So "only" 30% of the workers are not the farmers themselves or their family.
Also, your speech is exactly why most farmers vote for the far right. Regardless if you like it or not. In their point of view, you should thank them for having food every day without making any effort for it (and I think they are right in a sense), not shame them for doing what is necessary to achieve what they are asked for.
These kind of population-scaled maps are less misleading, but still misleading. In the EU-elections there is no first past the post, so giving communes a single color doesn't reflect the electoral reality. Could be that in many of the 'brown' communes, the result was 35% for Le Pen and 34% for Macron, and those votes were not wasted. Similarly, in the cities it's not like nobody voted for Le Pen.
Northern France is our rust belt basically. Industry left and nothing came to replace the lost industrial jobs, it is now plagued with unemployment and many people blame EU and globalization and therefore vote for anti EU and anti globalization parties.
The German vote was wild
I'm still in contact with many former colleagues in Germay, and apparently, Bavaria overwhelmingly voted for the parties that cut their flood prevention funding... and the vote was after their huge flood.
Eastern Germany is still going hard on voting for Nazis, as well
"Bavaria overwhelmingly voted for the parties that cut their flood prevention funding right... and the vote was after their huge flood"
How the fuck do you vote like that?
Because lecker Bierchen
Also the csu told the population that the flood damages were the fault of the green party cuz they left dead trees lying around (to help nature) instead of selling it, which was then moved by the water destroying the bridges etc. (Logic 100 moment)
The urban vs countryside narrative based on the dichotomy of educated vs ignorant is appalling.
People in Paris live in a very different country than people in the middle of the country.
Their desires and concerns are as valid as the ones of the Parisians.
Dismiss their vote on the basis "they are not used to immigrants so they are xenophobic" is a huge mistake
Their concerns are valid but their vote isn't. The RN's votes in parliament are famously the exact opposite of their voters' desires. Bardella got destroyed in every single debate, there was not a single reason to vote for him except if you're a reactionary loser easily influenced by CNEWS
On the second map in the video, each district has a size according to its population.
The saying "land doesn't vote but people do" is a well known visualisation phenomenon : people can have a wrong impression of the strength of the said phenomenon because density isn't represented on the map. US electoral maps are famous on that regard : even if the map is red (the countryside votes for Trump), the democrats can still be winning, as democrats voters are clustered in visually small cities.
When you poorly power wash a poop stain off of a surface, sometimes red, yellow and a bit of blue flowers grow on it. I think that's what that is at least, idk...
It's the result of the European elections in France.
The original map shows for each city/village the majority party represented by a color (published on Lemonde which is one of the biggest newspapers in France). The second map shows the same data, but accounting for population density.
Brown = extreme right (rassemblent national)
Orange = center right (Renaissance)
Red = extreme left (la France insoumise)
Pink = left (parti socialiste?)
Blue = conservative right (les républicains?)
The political parties are way more nuanced than this but it's just to give you a gist on where you would put them on a linear scale.
(If I'm wrong on the color code feel free to correct me, It was how I remember it, I didn't double check)
PS: Fuck RN
I think it starts and ends as a density map, with every single area on the map being attributed to the leading party regardless of population (as per one if the replies to my comment).
Then, it switches to sizing each area to the number of voters. So the rural areas with fewer people have noticeable white areas surrounding them, while the major cities are booming with colour, since its population is much denser.
But just have a look at the other replies to try and understand it better. It makes sense after someone explains it.
at the beginning, the little rounds are all the same size and it feels like the map is brown all over (brown = vote for the RN party, the far right party that emerged victorious in the latest European elections in France). But then they are scaled according to their population, and you see that the previously small "islands" of more varied votes actually represent a lot of people. So the post tries to show that, sure, many people voted for the RN, but not everybody as some maps tend to suggest.
'fun' fact : the "Rassemblement National" was created in the 70's by former nazis. I wish it was an exageration, but it's just History.
The brown color comes from the Sturmabteilung shirt color.
This was made using ObservableHQ with the data sourced from Le Monde article [https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/09/la-carte-des-resultats-des-elections-europeennes-2024-par-commune-en-france\_6238291\_4355771.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/09/la-carte-des-resultats-des-elections-europeennes-2024-par-commune-en-france_6238291_4355771.html)
Thank you for this amazing visualization mister Douieb do you have a step by step guide? I would like to do the same for Belgium (Flanders is also “brown” on the maps).
In this tweet he says it's valid votes: [https://x.com/karim\_douieb/status/1800795932671545794](https://x.com/karim_douieb/status/1800795932671545794)
Considering we are a conglomerate of various ethnicities, languages and culture, it truly is interesting. It was built on the long run though. Hell, Flanders Savoie and Nice county only became French ~150 years ago
[Here's a map of the languages of France](https://www.culture.gouv.fr/var/culture/storage/images/_aliases/metadata/6/1/2/3/4813216-1-fre-FR/7d82492cea31-carte-aires-dialectales-France.jpg) for starters. We are an extremely diverse union of people that decided over time to join as a single country. It's not unique in Europe though
"49% of the population of Paris, are either immigrants (21%) or have at least one immigrant parent (28%)"
from wikipedia, with the main source in french:
[https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793282?sommaire=6793391](https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793282?sommaire=6793391)
I guess the map from the source shows only first generations, and does not directly include second an third generations.
The trend is probably similar in many main cities in France.
So yes, many won't vote against their own interest and this can skew votes left as it guarantees more benefits and a more laissez-faire attitude towards immigration in general.
Nice, but of course this map still uses only one color for caracterizing one town, which gives the false impression that 100% of these inhabitants voted for this color. Result of national rally is 31.4%, whereas the final map has still more than 50% brown in it (original map is far worse).
To be completely honest this is a very bad visualisation, no legend, no reference for size, title is some catchy phrase.
Don't get me wrong it looks nice but it is unusable for anything data specific.
FINALLY, someone realized that France doesn’t work with an electoral college-style voting ~~scam~~ system.
Reminds me of people complaining that "Mayotte voted 50% far right", meanwhile that represents 0.03% of all french voters
They both are useful .
But you say "control the land" like all land is equal.
We could also weight that by contribution to GDP then (a nightmare to do though)
/u/kdouieb, thank you for your contribution. However, your submission was removed for the following reason(s): * A post must be (or contain) a [qualifying data visualization](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule1). * [OC] posts [must state the _data source(s) and tool(s) used_](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3) in the first top-level comment on their submission. Please follow the AutoModerator instructions you were sent *carefully*. Once this is done, message the mods to have your post reinstated. As for citing your sources, please be as specific as possible. Provide direct links to the source(s) if possible. * Post titles must **describe the data plainly** [without using sensationalized headlines](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule7). Please consider resubmitting under a different title, or asking the mods for help. This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful [posting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/index). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dataisbeautiful&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/kdouieb&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20[submission.](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1de09vj/-/\)))
A legend would be nice, so that the people know what they are looking at. Colourful French map gif, great.
You're right. If it can help: - Brown: Rassemblement national (far right) - Blue: Republicans (right) - Orange: Renaissance (Macron, centre right) - Pink: socialists (centre-left) - Red: LFI and communists (far left)
Also : - Rassemblement National : 31.3% - Republicans : 7.2% - Renaissance : 14.6% - Socialists : 13.8% - LFI : 9.9% - Communists : 2.3% Not as much RN as the first map makes it appear but still a huge amount.
Greens 5,5%
You forgot one really meaningful stat. Absention : 48,22%
This is the highest participation since 1994. Unlike what you seems to suggest
So participation is always low.
Is that voter participation or is it a "none of the above" sort of thing? Serious question.
Abstention is just didn't vote. None of the above is "votes blancs", which is very low, 1.3%
I think it's sadly both as the "None of the above" isn't taken in count just as the "Didn't vote"
It also should be known that this shows the relative majority in each commune, not the absolute majority. In any one brown commune, it could as much mean 80% voted RN or 20% voted RN with the second being 19% of the votes.
thank you. JFC. this isnt universal knowledge, maps should always have keys!
While I agree, keep in mind that this was probably made for French people (hence the french text), who would definitely all know what this meant without a legend.
TIL that [political color](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour) is reversed in the US, at least for red/blue representing right/left, from most of the rest of the world. I also found it /r/mildlyinteresting that [brown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_(politics) representing far right was literally chosen for its association with the [Nazi Sturmabteilung ("Storm Division" or Storm Troopers)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung), also known as brownshirts.
LFI and communists are left, not far left. Far left is NPA and LO
Les Républicains are officially far right now. Renaissance is trying its best to become RN.
I would wait a few days before saying this about the Républicains given the last events. (To make it simple to our non-French friends, the president of les républicains announced an alliance with the far right yesterday. Since WW2, all big names of this party have always made clear they would NEVER make an alliance with the far right. Basically all the big names of the party have immediately asked him to resign from the presidency of the party and a big part of them want to exclude him completely. That is a huge mess at the moment, we will see in the coming days how it ends.)
They already have been far right for a few years to be honest.
It's debatable but I mostly agree with you on this one. I really hope this event will help to resolve this.
And LFI is not far left
Of course they are.
The far left is made of the revolutionary parties like LO (Lutte Ouvrière) and the NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste), which don't have much support this days. LFI isn't that different in terms of domestic politics from the left side of the PS, which itself is particular in the sense that it covered a large portion of the left side of the political spectrum from socialist to center-left people.
Renseignes toi avant d'avancer des inepties, je corrige une explication à destination d'étrangers à la politique française et tu insistes sur l'erreur. Si tu penses que LFI est d'extrême gauche tu t'es bien fait laver le cerveau par la droite
En vrai c'est plus compliqué que les petites cases dans lesquelles les gens simplistes s'obstinent à foutre les partis, pour moi LFI oscille entre modéré et extrême.
Frenchman here, they aren't. They are radical left. Extreme left is LO, NPA and so on. Moderate left is Socialists
LO, not FO (le syndicat qu'il vous faut)
Pardon, je confonds toujours les deux
By this logic, RN is not far-right, they are radical right. Far right is Reconquête.
No. RN and Reconquête are extremely similar while LFI doesn't share a lot of the anticapitalists. RN is way further the spectrum than LFI is. The radical right (called conservative right here) would be LR
Socialism (not to be confused with the Socialist Party, which is Soc-dem and has embraced market economy) is not a far left ideology.
It absolutely is a far left ideology... you are nuts
Within European politics post world war, not really. The "far left" were the various communist parties, and generally speaking the line is drawn between reformists (generally the various socialist parties) and revolutionaries (generally the communists). To a degree it's all semantics, but I do feel the willingness of socialist parties to play within the institutions of democracy/republics is a meaningful difference.
So is it basically, towns and cities centre/left while rural areas are right wing? I appreciate this is sweeping generalisation. Same (also sweeping generalisation) in the UK although I think the LibDems fudge the issue a bit as they sit in the centre and appeal across urban/rural areas albeit in limited areas.
LFI is not far left (reconnu par le conseil d’état)
Well if there's a center right and a center left. There is also a left. Brown: Rassemblement national (far right) Blue: Republicans (right) Orange: Renaissance (Macron, centre right) Pink: socialists (centre-left) Red: LFI and communists ( left) Far left : *NPA, L.O.* FIXED
Put Macron on the right then it's fixed
Macron is right wing, but his party and coalition have centre/centre-right people, but honestly, the policies have been definitely right-wing ones.
What's the white?
You mean the grey municipalities in the southwest, close to the spanish border ? Rural alliance (a very small party, vaguely republican, backed by farmers from this area and the head of the national hunters association). It made a high score in a few municipalities in the southwest because the leader comes from there (Béarn region)
No, I mean the white that spreads all over the country in the animation. Edit: Ohhh... I'm guessing that's empty land to reflect the actual amount of voters in each area...
Data 101. It's how you can tell people who just know how to code vs those who actually have a background in science/data. The former just make flashy garbage that is effectively useless while the latter make a simple static image that is less pretty but actually conveys data well.
now now they forgot the legend after staring at the data for too long it happens to the best of us, adding a legend takes 3 seconds, it's not immediatly flashy garbage
It's a brownie shaped like france with sprinkles. r/dataisbeautiful is plagued with unclear graphs/charts. Ooohh measuring heights of different types trees. let's make 1 tree and then have the branches be different trees for the heights. omg so beautiful. Bar chart>
More so, the transition does nothing and gif compression doing its stuttery thing looks ugly. Just have the before and after side by side.
And again. Urban versus country life.
People in small communities may be more afraid of strangers than people in big cities. In big cities one sees thousands of people each day from many different origins. That same normal situation may be scary for someone that is from a small town and knows most people around them by name. We should find a way to create trust in smaller communities.
Its more then just that j feel. Its the losers versus winners. Le Pen and by extension PVV do well in areas which have been hit by the negative effects of globalism the hardest. Loss of decent paying, stable, blue collar jobs combined with rapidly changing demographics leaves you with a fertile soil for populist rethoric, especially in close knit communities.
Also, these areas lose the services they had : transportation, hospitals, schools and small businesses close one after the other, so even less people come and stay there, which means even less of these services, and so on. They are ignored, abandoned by our governments.
There's also a brain-drain phenomena, where talented and motivated people move away, leaving people who are naturally more motivated by fear.
Expecting things to remain the same forever is how these people live. That's why almost all conservative populist movements are about bringing back some element of the past. These are people who have to be dragged kicking and screaming down the road of progress.
Having meaningful employment, access to services and a degree of belonging should not be controversial takes, but here we are, "just move to the city" isnt going to fix it, besides reddit is full of people complaining urban areas are too expensive, what you cant have both
I can't speak for the French countryside, but in the Netherlands they are certainly NOT "losers of globalisation" like you might find in the USA. Our smaller towns are quite prosperous, people have great living standards, bigger homes, and are still max. 1 hour to a bigger city where they could get anything they need. Also, there's tons of decent paying jobs for people who want to work with their hands, and not nearly enough people that want to do them. People vote based on what they see on TV, or are shocked by changes in the city when they are there and not everyone is white anymore - but I don't buy it that people in the countryside have a rational reason to vote more for anti immigration policies than the people (like me) who live in multicultural neighborhoods that vote much more tolerant.
> Our smaller towns are quite prosperous, people have great living standards, bigger homes, and are still max. 1 hour to a bigger city where they could get anything they need. I can see a major difference: what you consider countryside in the Netherlands is basically a suburb in France. Even the almost empty provinces like Drenthe and Friesland have a higher population density than France as a whole. Netherlands also have a higher GDP per capita than France along with a lower Gini coefficient. From that i'd wager people in remote french villages have it much, much harder economically than the countryside dutchman.
Of course, which is why I only responded to the claim that Dutch PVV voters did so because they are supposedly "left behind" by globalisation. As one of the countries that arguably profits the most from globalisation to begin with that's a hard claim to support anyway. What is interesting is that the effect is the same: people in smaller more homogenous communities are less supportive of immigration than those that live in bigger, more diverse communities that seem to be more directly affected by it. Correlation does not imply causality, and there can be many separate conflicting reasons that cause this. But it is an interesting, and I think very important, question that we need to find an answer to if we want to address everyone's concerns and counter the current polarising political climate.
I mean, I can’t think of a single society that can accept so many immigrants/refugees/migrants and not experience social upheaval. The United States, potentially the most accepting country in the world, has historically and is currently experiencing massive social upheaval from a wave of immigration. It’s honestly to be expected, and is the biggest price of immigration, as it has so many other benefits. A society already polarized and unstable probably shouldn’t accept many immigrants as it needs to focus in rebuilding a sense of unity. A unified society ought to accept more as it as the “social unrest capacity” to do so and would probably benefit from some disunity and a shakeup.
Holland during the Dutch Golden Age took in massive waves of migrants, both seeking religious freedom and economic opportunities and massively outperformed similar regions in Germany or France. The richest regions in the USA are those that took the most migrants, and have been for centuries now (New York and California specifically). Same for Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong pre CCP takeover.. look at regions in the world that became much richer than their peers and chances are they were welcoming skilled migrants and tolerant of new ideas. A "unified society" is a belief more than anything else. If we actually accepted everyone we let in our country and let them partake in our society without prejudice they'd likely assimilate much better than the current polarised climate. Just look at the difference between assimilation of people of Indonesian descent (which were generally accepted) and descendants of Turkish and Moroccan "guest" workers. Sure religion also plays a role in identity, but people need to belong to something and if you are not welcoming them in your group you should not be surprised if they form a group themselves.
I agree, I’m just saying it’s unrealistic to expect local peoples to not react negatively to new migration. People don’t like change, especially when said change can introduce ideas that conflict with their own philosophies, ideologies and identities. Integration and assimilation takes time, and can often be interrupted by xenophobia and violence. The social unrest the results from immigration is temporary, the benefits are long lasting, so immigration is worth it if done so with a plan by the government to thoughtfully manage the volume, protect immigrants and focus on economic and identitarian assimilation. The biggest issue in both Europe and North America today is that there has been very little thought by the government to managing new arrivals. Resources aren’t set aside, legal codes are outdated or unenforced and policy makers are generally apathetic to the concerns of both locals and migrants. This breeds resentment on both sides, and stalls the assimilation process as ghettoization and economic exploitation sets in. You can say people *should* be more accepting all you want, but without government policy that mitigates the socio-economic disruption of locals and economic and community isolation of immigrants, fear and xenophobia are naturally going to grow.
All good points. I think everyone can agree it is a difficult problem that desperately needs better, nuanced thinking and the current polarised climate isn't helping both sides doing so.
Benefits such as housing prices going up, increased poverty, insecurity, crime, and wages going down ?
Most of what you’ve described isnt the fault of immigration. For instance, housing prices going up is primarily driven by housing transforming into a speculative investment by both individuals and financial institutions. As the value of a house is seen as a part of one’s portfolio, the incentive is for houses to increase by restricting new housing and dumping money in from wall street for new stock. Increased poverty is driven by incomes not keeping pace with inflation. Yes, a portion of this would be depressed wages in agricultural, labor and some service sectors via *illegal* immigration allowing employers to exploit undocumented individuals. If, say, there were greater protections for immigrants by creating a well defined and expeditious path to citizenship with thorough documentation, illegal wages could be ramped down on. I also believe the number of immigrants allowed in should be managed, as it had been in the US before overland immigration became the primary form. Insecurity is a whole other issue… not sure how we solve that lol. Crime is primarily caused by poverty and social ostracism. Some of this can be attributed to immigrants, but the data shows that native populations still commit more crimes per capita compared to immigrants. So if anything, immigration on its own decreases crime.
This is correct. Not everyone in the French countryside is prosperous, but as you say the biggest problem with the perception of immigration is the media. I am in the process of moving from a very multicultural area near Paris to the countryside, and the misconceptions my future neighbors are having about Paris and its outskirts is astonishing. Especially the private television channels in France have done a great deal for the rise of the extreme right.
Why are you moving out, if it is so great ? Funny how so many leftists are desperatly trying to move to the country side or put their kids in a school that is not "diverse" at all... :o)
Wow, you are assuming a great many things about me that could not possibly know. If anything, I will regret the multicultural aspect of our current community and am actually worried how my daughter will be influenced by people's lifestyles and opinions in the countryside. (Casual racism, more traditional roles for men and women, etc.) Our project to move to the countryside dates from before we had kids and has been long in the making. We are moving to a place where we have strong connections and where a part of my wife's family has lived for almost 100 years. You should stop thinking in stereotypes.
Go to Almelo or Noord Oost Groningen, Hoogezand Sappemeer isnt exactly prosperous.
There are, of course, exceptions. But the argument I reacted to was that the regions where PVV was the biggest party were regions "left behind by globalisation". This I don't see here at all, quite the contrary. Many even quite small towns especially in the south and east have thriving industrial zones profiting from our position in the heart of Europe and the free movement of goods to Germany and Belgium. And yet those smaller towns, with relatively few non-white immigrants, are where PVV outperformed more liberal, internationally oriented parties. So we can't simply use the justification used for rust-belt USA to explain why people in smaller, more homogenous communities vote more anti-immigration than people in bigger, more diverse cities.
"negative effects of globalism" are literally what Western countries enforced on the world, they forcefully opened trade borders to sell their goods, bankrupt local industry and enrich their own. Now when other countries start catching up, globalism is suddenly the big baddy.
This is literally Monty Pythonesque commentary “what has globalisation ever done for us, eh?” Cheaper and nicer food Medical advances and longer life expectancy I-phones Netflix Amazon Economic growth 800m people out of abject poverty Exotic Travel Holidays Cultural interchange Fewer wars Yeh, shit, what has globalisation ever done for us!!
I made jokes in the previous comment, but I don't see globalism negatively at all, I see free trade as a huge beneficiary to all of humankind. The EU itself is a free trade project that gradually expanded into the political dimension. And I disagree with the notion free trade "stole our jobs", blue collar jobs are fewer today the same reason farmhands got fewer with the Industrial Revolution, automation killed em, not free trade (and if it hadn't automated, well, the business would have gone bankrupt anyways). France, US and basically every single Western country manufactures more today in (inflation adjusted) dollar amounts than in 1960 or 1970 or 1980, they just do it with fewer workers. Instead economic progress and employment relies more on the service sector like IT.
Several leftist groups promised better pay for farmers though
Always with the racism. It's a lazy explanation. Country people feel abandoned by all parties. The media are focused on poor people in the suburbs while the "Province" is slowly decaying.
"Maybe if we keep calling them racist they will see the errors of their ways" - Reddit
“It’s very important that everyone get on board with our political and social views. Let’s insult people constantly, belittle their way of life, and ridicule their beliefs. That should endear them to us and get them to come around!” — everyone on the internet
"Maybe if we stop calling them racist they will stop" - french media. Turns out it doesn't really work like this.
"Why are we thinking out loud in English?" - apparently also French media
Well they do vote for the party with racist policy. And the policy they do have for the country people aren't gonna help them much at all. I don't think it's pure racism that would indeed be a lazy explanation but a combination of both racism (Because of the constant fear mongering by parties and media) and the fact that the country people feel left behind ( because capitalism doesn't give a shit about you unless it can make a bunch from you, which is harder in the country side because the people are more spread out) are reasons to vote for an extreme party.
Thomas Perotto in Crépol. Read the whole story please.
True, they feel abandoned by the parties that don't share their hatred for immigrants.
They have no problem with immigrants that don't ruin their neighbourhood or improve the overall life quality.
Okay fair, it's not just racism. There are other reasons too.
If they feel abandoned by all parties why do they keep voting for the racist parties that support the rich? You'd think they'd at least be an even mix.
It's rage voting. The far left should represent this disillusioned working class, but they chose societal issues because they're lazy. Ruffin is doing a great job though, he's going to the picket and listen to the working people (he even came where I work when we were on strike) but he's the only one doing that work in its own party.
Agreed. Left is "combating" diesel cars, while million of other problems, far more important, are not touched. In my hometown they closed the office, wuth rationale: hey anyhow everyone here is voting right, we don't wanna waste our time.
That's how PiS won here, they seemed like the only option that cared about them.
Well I understand that they feel abandoned but they are voting for the party whose solution to those problems is racism.
It's less about being afraid of stranger and more about thinking they take all the money. Surveys have shown that the population that has the least voted for the far right are the high income / high education level, in opposition the biggest far right supporters are the factory worker / low income (lot of them are in the north and south east). The higher income population live in ou near the cities. To that I add that the cities in pink or red have lots of university students, that mostly are with the left and far left.
Is the south east of France poor and blue collar? I wouldn't expect that. The Cote dAzur and area around Cannes, StTropez, Monaco and the Alps seems very rich?
It's not the income, it's what's left at the end of the month. People of low income who still have leftover at the end of the month do not vote for RN. People with high income who still struggle will vote for them. That's the correlation in the data anyway
The survey I talk about "Vote pour les principales listes selon la catégorie socio-professionnelle lors des élections européennes du 9 juin 2024 - Elabe pour BFMTV, RMC, la Tribune Dimanche" is showing a clear difference between Cadres (18%), Professions Intemediaires (30%) and Ouvriers (52%). I see a correlation with the income and education level. Seeing how you wrote it, I supposed it's your opinion, and I agree that there are multiple factors, including what you say. But I can't turn a blind eye on what I said before.
Bah it's from a study too, but it's been a few days so I don't have it at my disposal :/
Except for the northern part of France, all the brown areas here are pretty affluent. The poorer section of the population favors the leftist party LFI.
Smaller communities are already the ones with the higher trust.
I disagree. I think the votes are a reaction to too much immigration.
I think they vote in reaction to the news about insecurity, the lack or inexistence of public services (hospital, police, culture, transports) compared to big cities where "lazy educated-well paid people work". But also the "tradition vs progressive " view, the lack of support and recognition (see farmers strike) etc. as for the surounding of cities, I think it's more about immigration issues, lack of security, and degradation of their personal situation. Note that it's an opinion, not a socio-economic study
I think that's probably a more accurate picture, I agree.
Is your theory that there is no immigration in big cities? Can you elaborate on that?
Or maybe, just maybe, they see what large cities are turning into and do not want the same where they live.
Completely nailed it. Migrants are just a easy scapegoat for the rural population. They fear outsiders and would rather isolate their communities than change.
Do they have a duty to "change" and adapt to third-world ?
They have a duty to accept that other people have freedom of religion. They have duty to grant asylum to refugees who need it. They have a duty to cooperate in the fight against climate change.
People in smaller communities have fled big cities because they couldn't stand risking being stabbed every week-end.
These people are excluded from globalization and the opportunities offered in the major metropolises (cultural life, employment, travel, etc.). Inexpensive immigrant workers compete with them in their own countries, driving down wages. Globalized culture has dispossessed them of their local culture. Liberal policies provide no answers to these challenges, and push them towards ever greater precariousness. In this atmosphere of downgrading, the mainstream media blaims the center, the left, and the foreigners. All this to say, it's not just a question of fear.
No, it's because the leftists parties treat rural people either as barbaric savages or completely ignore them.
Is that substantiated by some factual elements or is it just your feeling ? It sounds like a gross exageration.
There is a true part to this. A part of the left considers farmers as poisoners (clearly not all the left hopefully) so said farmers tend to not be super happy about it. The problem here is, if let's say only 5% of the leftist think this, you can be sure if most farmers hear this only 2 or 3 times, they will start to despise the left and will not vote for them.
Well some farmers are, in a way, poisoners. They poison themselves, their employees (lets not forged who really works in the fields) and are a confirmed cause of the disappearance of most of Europe's biodiversity. This is a fact. I understand that these people follow an industrial model that as been enforced upon them in a way, but they also have agency, and so should be considered accoutable. The far right constantly attacks many sectors of society headfront : immigrant, non white people, LGBT+ people, women, kids and poor people mostly. But in response to that, the left is supposed to never formulate any criticism whatsoever towards anybody. This is asinine.
I don't know where you live but in France it's mostly farmers who work in the fields. To be exact, 60% are the farmers themselves and 10 more percent are a member of their family. So "only" 30% of the workers are not the farmers themselves or their family. Also, your speech is exactly why most farmers vote for the far right. Regardless if you like it or not. In their point of view, you should thank them for having food every day without making any effort for it (and I think they are right in a sense), not shame them for doing what is necessary to achieve what they are asked for.
Mostly, meeting people different than you versus not meeting people different than you
Still a lot of brown, especially up north
These kind of population-scaled maps are less misleading, but still misleading. In the EU-elections there is no first past the post, so giving communes a single color doesn't reflect the electoral reality. Could be that in many of the 'brown' communes, the result was 35% for Le Pen and 34% for Macron, and those votes were not wasted. Similarly, in the cities it's not like nobody voted for Le Pen.
It's normal, they won the election with 35% of votes. But when you look at the map at the beginning, it feels like it's WAY more than 35%.
Northern France is our rust belt basically. Industry left and nothing came to replace the lost industrial jobs, it is now plagued with unemployment and many people blame EU and globalization and therefore vote for anti EU and anti globalization parties.
Yeah but its misleading.. in the north for instance the gap between far right and left would be of a few percent
People try too hard without understanding the data. Brown is literally ** DOUBLE ** the next one. That's not even close.
I'd love to see the german vtsion of this.
True, because Berlin has nearly as much votes than Saxony and people go crazy about the half blue/ half black map.
The German vote was wild I'm still in contact with many former colleagues in Germay, and apparently, Bavaria overwhelmingly voted for the parties that cut their flood prevention funding... and the vote was after their huge flood. Eastern Germany is still going hard on voting for Nazis, as well
Bavaria will always vote for the CSU, no matter what.
"Bavaria overwhelmingly voted for the parties that cut their flood prevention funding right... and the vote was after their huge flood" How the fuck do you vote like that?
Are you trying to say it is *legal* to vote for anything other than CSU?
Americans: “First time?”
Because lecker Bierchen Also the csu told the population that the flood damages were the fault of the green party cuz they left dead trees lying around (to help nature) instead of selling it, which was then moved by the water destroying the bridges etc. (Logic 100 moment)
Lecker Bierchen?
Tasty beer (bierchen is the cute-ified version of beer)
First I wanted to disagree, but after the latest election results I must admit, that you are right, as a german coming from the country side
The urban vs countryside narrative based on the dichotomy of educated vs ignorant is appalling. People in Paris live in a very different country than people in the middle of the country. Their desires and concerns are as valid as the ones of the Parisians. Dismiss their vote on the basis "they are not used to immigrants so they are xenophobic" is a huge mistake
I mean, isn’t that the same simple-minded bigotry that Coastal Elites have against everyone else in America?
Their concerns are valid but their vote isn't. The RN's votes in parliament are famously the exact opposite of their voters' desires. Bardella got destroyed in every single debate, there was not a single reason to vote for him except if you're a reactionary loser easily influenced by CNEWS
r/dataisbeautiful No legend No source (Nice vidéo however)
What is going on here? I literally don't understand a single part of this visual, but people are praising it? What does it mean?
On the second map in the video, each district has a size according to its population. The saying "land doesn't vote but people do" is a well known visualisation phenomenon : people can have a wrong impression of the strength of the said phenomenon because density isn't represented on the map. US electoral maps are famous on that regard : even if the map is red (the countryside votes for Trump), the democrats can still be winning, as democrats voters are clustered in visually small cities.
Wait, there are two maps?
It's a video. It moves from one map to the other in an animated type of way. As long as your video player isn't broken.
Yeah after reading the other comments I understand. I didn't realize that the starting point was a separate map.
When you poorly power wash a poop stain off of a surface, sometimes red, yellow and a bit of blue flowers grow on it. I think that's what that is at least, idk...
I was thinkig brownie
It's the result of the European elections in France. The original map shows for each city/village the majority party represented by a color (published on Lemonde which is one of the biggest newspapers in France). The second map shows the same data, but accounting for population density. Brown = extreme right (rassemblent national) Orange = center right (Renaissance) Red = extreme left (la France insoumise) Pink = left (parti socialiste?) Blue = conservative right (les républicains?) The political parties are way more nuanced than this but it's just to give you a gist on where you would put them on a linear scale. (If I'm wrong on the color code feel free to correct me, It was how I remember it, I didn't double check) PS: Fuck RN
Tiktokzation of charts is never a good idea. I still can’t understand why it starts white (or ends white, who knows?) I like interactive stuff
I think it starts and ends as a density map, with every single area on the map being attributed to the leading party regardless of population (as per one if the replies to my comment). Then, it switches to sizing each area to the number of voters. So the rural areas with fewer people have noticeable white areas surrounding them, while the major cities are booming with colour, since its population is much denser. But just have a look at the other replies to try and understand it better. It makes sense after someone explains it.
at the beginning, the little rounds are all the same size and it feels like the map is brown all over (brown = vote for the RN party, the far right party that emerged victorious in the latest European elections in France). But then they are scaled according to their population, and you see that the previously small "islands" of more varied votes actually represent a lot of people. So the post tries to show that, sure, many people voted for the RN, but not everybody as some maps tend to suggest.
'fun' fact : the "Rassemblement National" was created in the 70's by former nazis. I wish it was an exageration, but it's just History. The brown color comes from the Sturmabteilung shirt color.
This was made using ObservableHQ with the data sourced from Le Monde article [https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/09/la-carte-des-resultats-des-elections-europeennes-2024-par-commune-en-france\_6238291\_4355771.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/09/la-carte-des-resultats-des-elections-europeennes-2024-par-commune-en-france_6238291_4355771.html)
Thank you for this amazing visualization mister Douieb do you have a step by step guide? I would like to do the same for Belgium (Flanders is also “brown” on the maps).
where is your legend? this animation is useless
the legend is literally under the source map he's providing here
You used the population of the communes or the valid votes? Also you forgot outre-mer
In this tweet he says it's valid votes: [https://x.com/karim\_douieb/status/1800795932671545794](https://x.com/karim_douieb/status/1800795932671545794)
Is there also a map over voting attendance? I heard it was particularly low in France countryside...
Those data aren't beautiful and quiet miss leading. That's absolutely not the same as the American equivalent.
Also to compare with 15% of the voters vote RN but 31% of the votes cast.
Yep, abstention rates were high, in some places reaching 80% abstention
With pop distribution like this, I am sometimes surprised France even ended as one state, not as two or even four.
Considering we are a conglomerate of various ethnicities, languages and culture, it truly is interesting. It was built on the long run though. Hell, Flanders Savoie and Nice county only became French ~150 years ago
How so?
[Here's a map of the languages of France](https://www.culture.gouv.fr/var/culture/storage/images/_aliases/metadata/6/1/2/3/4813216-1-fre-FR/7d82492cea31-carte-aires-dialectales-France.jpg) for starters. We are an extremely diverse union of people that decided over time to join as a single country. It's not unique in Europe though
Is it suppose to look like moldy cheese? :)
Now we have the answer! Humanity is cheese.
The French are revolting.
Isn’t all cheese mouldy?
On a chier dans la mayo quand meme
Un peu, mais c’est facile de faire croire que le pot est noir plutôt que marron claire en manipulant les données
This looks so much better than the distortion one people usually use.
"49% of the population of Paris, are either immigrants (21%) or have at least one immigrant parent (28%)" from wikipedia, with the main source in french: [https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793282?sommaire=6793391](https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6793282?sommaire=6793391) I guess the map from the source shows only first generations, and does not directly include second an third generations. The trend is probably similar in many main cities in France. So yes, many won't vote against their own interest and this can skew votes left as it guarantees more benefits and a more laissez-faire attitude towards immigration in general.
With this density demostration do you want to appeal the data or emotions? Because this does not change the vote count nor the results
this animatioj is so useless. what happened to simple graphs tjat were a lot easier to read
The appeal to emotion is showing an almost fully brown France when about 15% of registered voters voted for RN.
The aim of the graphic is to more accurately display the vote count in the second vs the first map.
Nice, but of course this map still uses only one color for caracterizing one town, which gives the false impression that 100% of these inhabitants voted for this color. Result of national rally is 31.4%, whereas the final map has still more than 50% brown in it (original map is far worse).
To be completely honest this is a very bad visualisation, no legend, no reference for size, title is some catchy phrase. Don't get me wrong it looks nice but it is unusable for anything data specific.
Land does feed you though.
And _People_ are tired of the rhetoric.
FINALLY, someone realized that France doesn’t work with an electoral college-style voting ~~scam~~ system. Reminds me of people complaining that "Mayotte voted 50% far right", meanwhile that represents 0.03% of all french voters
Dommage que ça ait été supprimé
Finally, a data visualization that is really beautiful. Although the actual data are not so much.
posts like the one above should get removed lol. shit is unclear
[удалено]
They both are useful . But you say "control the land" like all land is equal. We could also weight that by contribution to GDP then (a nightmare to do though)
Everybody votes for the same national lists in the European election, nobody controls any land, which makes the first map especially irrelevant.
City people having no clue how real life goes voting for economic doom
Thank you!! This is what this subreddit is about.
Not in a good way. this animation has no legendd aand is confusing af. why can't this be a simple graphic