Spare Parts For Ika Stranne Lamp

Meanwhile the great debate

The great debate between the two towers at the French presidential elections is a political object rare since fifty years of Fifth Republic, we only had four debates of this type (1974, 1981, 1988 and 1995).
As we recall, there was no debate in 2002, Jacques Chirac refused to debate with Jean-Marie Le Pen, because "the face of intolerance and hatred, there is no deal possible, no debate possible "(1).


France, a precursor major presidential debates
Our country was in 1974, one of the first countries to broadcast a televised debate between presidential candidates. Contrary to what one might expect, the United States has not been much further ahead in this area. Certainly, in 1960, a first series of televised debates between the Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, took place in 1960. But the practice was then discontinued (2) and did not resume until 1976, not without difficulties. In Europe, major televised debates between leaders political coalitions are not systematic (it is true that elections are in the presence of first parties and not individuals as in the French presidential election). Only during the 2005 election was held a televised debate for the first time in Germany between the candidates in the Chancery. And in Britain, this practice has not yet become the norm although it is regularly required.

These debates are very popular with voters and collect huge audiences (23 million to broadcast the debate of 1974 it is true on three channels, almost 17 million for the last debate in 1995). They give rise to exchanges of high intensity and also the famous little phrases that will be remembered long after the election.

In 1974, we remember and Valery Giscard d'Estaing had touched a low of François Mitterrand, calling him "a man of the past." Obviously, the formula had been carefully prepared for VGE constantly hammered this theme repeatedly accusing his opponent to refer to France before and afraid to project into the future with new ideas.

was less noted, however, another point of debate (29th minute) when FM VGE addressed by talking of Clermont-Ferrand, "a city that knows you and knows me well." But why mention Clermont-Ferrand? Jean-François Balmer, who at this time "replays" with Jacques Weber debates of 1974 and 1981 at the Theatre de la Madeleine , recently gave me the key to this little conundrum is the home town of Anne Pingeot. And one can imagine, from CCV, the allusion was not accidental but intended to destabilize FM (3), or at least make him understand that he was aware of his emotional life.

The rules of debate
Any discussion must follow rules that define its course (what is generally called the debate format). This concern:

- the overall length of the debate and its various components;
- the roles of various participants and how their interventions;
- the layout of the place of debate;
- and, if television broadcasting, terms of framing. In France, plans to cut (Frame a candidate while the other talks) have been far systematically denied during the second round of debates.

In a political debate, we can distinguish:
- debaters itself (politicians, candidates),
- the questioners (journalists, and sometimes public)
- the host attached to respect the rules and especially those relating to time.

In general, we consider that each of the debaters must have the same time. It's sort of the application of a policy debate of the basic principles of any democracy: equality of citizens. And it is probably for this reason that the debaters are almost religiously committed to this rule, although it is quite clear that the impact we have on the audience of a debate does not only depend on time available (and that intervention may be clear concise and more effective).

The political debate in America: Myth and Reality
When we speak of election debate in France, it often refers to "the American political debate." This was particularly the case in October 2006 during the debate between the candidates canidature PS.

This reference is doubly funny.
Why should we take the American model as an example of good political debate?
No, the United States, a single format for political debate, but rather a multitude of formats (each election giving rise to heated discussions on the correct format), and all are subject to criticism .

Since 1948, three major types of formats were used in primaries or U.S. presidential campaigns (with many variations of each):
- format podium candidates are standing behind a lectern or sitting on chairs. They face the panelists to (reporters) and moderator (facilitator). Depending on the case, candidates respond only to questions of the panelists or may address each other.
- the town meeting format called : the debate in the presence of an audience (which often can ask questions). Candidates are usually standing behind desks and they can be allowed to walk on stage.
- the round-table format: the candidates and the moderator are sitting around a table and speak directly to each other.

Whatever approach is adopted, policy debates are often criticized. Here are some of the problems identified (after Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney, 1994):
- candidates do not have enough time to respond substantively to questions;
- they do not always the same question, which prevents comparisons, or simply do not respond to questions;
- the panelists are too intrusive or, conversely, they do not enough;
- panelists misrepresent the concerns of the population;
- question-answer format is not conducive to genuine debate.

Political debates are they useful? Yes
meet throughout the research on the subject.

- The discussions raise the level of information policies and knowledge of voters.
- They increase interest in election campaigns and political life.
- They allow citizens to compare the candidates, their personalities and their projects, and provide useful elements for their vote.
- They make the policy more alive and more concrete, even dramatic (within the meaning of the word: surprises, surprises and captures the imagination)
- They facilitate the acceptance of election results and, more generally, strengthen the commitment to the principles of democracy.

However, research on policy debates suggest that they have very little impact on voting intentions, but rather tend to reinforce pre-existing provisions of the voters. It has often been noted that people who watched the televised political debates were citizens rather politicized, opinions already well established, while citizens who might be most susceptible to the influence of watching the debates generally very low. _________________

(1) Meeting of Rennes, April 23, 2002.
(2) The past presidents are reluctant to discuss with their opponent and also because of audiovisual regulation on equality between candidates.
(3) Reported also by Ariane Chemin and Géraldine Catalano in their work on Mitterrand a family secret (Stock, 2005)

To see or see again: The second round of debates from 1974 to 1995 on the DVD produced by INA .

NB: This post is a cover of various tickets already posted on this blog.

Where To Buy Lakme Cosmetics

Operations estimation and exit polls

April 22, from 20 hours, even as thousands of voters will just put their ballot in the ballot box, mainstream media announce the results of the first round. But how is this possible?

practice, two techniques are used by the media to announce the likely outcome of the election.

operations estimate consist of extrapolating results from the national recounts done in some offices that close at 18h or 19 hours. These offices are selected based on results of previous elections to form a sample of representative offices of the electorate. Then, applying the adjustment models (to account for differences in supply policy with the previous elections), the estimated national results from the first results of these offices. A first estimation takes place at 18:30 (but is not made public to avoid influencing Last voters) and then refined as and when taking into account the additional votes. The first estimate
operation was conducted in 1965 by a team from the AFP, led by political scientist Jean-Luc Parodi, working from the results of a hundred common. She helped to establish as soon as 19 hours h50 General de Gaulle got 42 to 45% of the vote and was therefore tie in the first round (1).
estimation operations generally allow to clearly identify the main trends of the 1st round and give very good results for the 2nd round. But they have two drawbacks. They are very expensive, because they mobilize many people (four to five cents for a presidential election, more so for other elections). They do not provide information on the composition of electorates and the motivations of the vote.

is why the television call, since 1983, a second technique: the exit polls (SSU) . The SSU
are polls on the day of the election with a sample of voters from voting. They are asked to exit their offices on the voting have made and the reasons for their choice.
The main advantage of ESS is to provide data that goes beyond the scores obtained by candidates who can perform an explanation of hot French vote. We can see whether the voters are determined at the last minute or longer before the election, an idea of the direction in which an occupational group or age group voted, or understand how the deferrals are made votes between the two towers. Nevertheless, data from ESS are not very reliable and should be handled with more caution than intention polls to vote. They are based on statements that can not be completely sincere. ESS tend to over-represent voters most politicized and older who respond more readily to requests from investigators and under-represent the people very politicized and having done some studies (2).

________________ (1) But this information was disseminated by the AFP to 9:20 p.m., Chairman of AFP, John Marin (Gaullist history had been one of the voice of Free France broadcast on the BBC) have been extremely cautious before committing.
(2) is certainly can partially correct these biases by various relief methods. But SSU is made extremely quickly, these adjustments are probably even more imperfect they are for traditional political polls.



This post is an excerpt from my book How does one become President (e) of the republic? The strategies of the candidates (Robert Laffont), Chapter 7, where you can find more information on election nights.

Real Breast Buds Image

tools to know who to vote on the debates Debates

According to latest opinion polls, 27 to 42% of voters have not yet chosen what (the) candidate (s) they would vote April 22. If you are in this case, here is a small inventory (alphabetically) tools available on the Internet that can help you determine which candidate you are closest in terms of its program.

Test World : graphically successful, at least for the rest .
Graphically very successful, but not the most convincing in its methodology. For each of the 19 themes, one must choose between three or four proposals (including sometimes but not always a box does not know).

My vote for me : complete and fairly solid. Moved by
sitoyen.fr and Sciences-Po Lyon from the application VoteMatch developed by the Netherlands Institute for Political Participation. You must answer 35 questions with "I agree", "I disagree" or "I do not know," which helps you determine your affinity with candidates.
Note: ability to define the issues we consider most important (thereby increasing their impact on the final result).

Polimètre : the most rigorous methodology, but a little long
Designed by two scholars, Paul Antoine Chevalier (ENS Cachan) and Lionel Page (University of Westminster, London) in collaboration with a team of RTL and Debate site 2007.fr. You must answer 30 questions in five terms (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) and we can choose the more important issue in the final result. This is by far the most methodologically rigorous even if we can challenge some options or the formulation of questions (see the methodology note and some discussions around Polimètre HERE).

Politest : to be on the left-right scale.
Directed by two former sciences-po, it offers 12 themes with 3-5 proposals each time.
can then choose the axis that gives priority (economic, social and identity of France). The test indicates the party of which one is closest based on the comparison between the position of the party and the respondent on a scale to 9 degrees.

To who to vote : the simplest, but a little too simple.
In version 1, the answers to questions gave 5 stars to candidates and whoever got the most stars was the candidate.
In the current version, three sets of 5 questions help determine a candidate who could match our expectations. We can then meet 10 other questions measuring the degree of proximity.

What candidat.com : not bad but too eclectic.
In partnership with the Dauphiné Libéré, the answer 25 questions (plus 6 issues tastes and values). Then obtained scores (in%) similarity with each of the 12 candidates.

Vote More : the funniest is the comparator
proposed by Canal Plus. By answering 10 questions, you will know if you are fairly close to Ségolène Bovancenot Sarkopen or François, or another crétaure unlikely. Superb graphics. Too serious not to.

How does it work?

How

calculated results to these tests? Two types of methods can be used:

- The tests points: they are similar to quizzes or tests found in magazines (those which crosses add triangles or rounds to determine his psychological profile). Each answer corresponds to a candidate (s) and is worth one point and we add the points to determine which candidate you are closest. Refine by giving it little more or less points to responses based on their importance.

- Tests based on the calculation of the distance : there is a little more complicated and it joins a stream of analysis of the vote, known as spatial analysis of voting.
Basically, this is how it works. It defines a political space using n dimensions (each dimension being a problem or an issue of the election). It is then each candidate in this political space with a point, which depends on its position on each dimension deductions (items that can be represented by a ladder, for example from 1 to 5). Thus, on a two-dimensional space, if the candidate's position on the first 3 and 5 on the second, he will be in space at coordinates (3.5). Of course, it becomes more realistic (but also much more complex view) when considering a dozen dimensions.
Similarly, we can define the position of each voter in the same space policy according to their preferences on each dimension (or problems). Finally, using an algorithm, calculates the distance between the voter and each candidate and determine which candidate the voter is the less remote.

Problems these tests
To design a good test, we must first identify issues of concern to many voters, then collect the candidates' positions on these issues and finally write good questions. Now each of these steps is problematic.

• It is not easy to find the right mix of questions. A test can give too much importance to social issues and not enough on economic issues. However, some tests used to weight the questions according to topics of most concern to respondents, and so give them a greater impact on the outcome.
• Programs candidates are not necessarily all available (remember that Nicolas Sarkozy has been made public until late March) and do not always know the candidate's position on a particular issue. Ideally, we should ask each candidate to complete the questionnaire is being proposed to voters. But the teams of candidates are solicited so that this is the tour de force. ( For the record, in 2001, we achieved with a team of students from Sciences-Po comparator programs of candidates for municipal elections in Paris. But we had great trouble getting their programs even playing of all our relationships. )
• Another difficulty of writing "right" questions, ie questions understandable by all, neither too long nor ambiguous. In this regard, several tests inventoried here are not entirely satisfactory. Questions can be sometimes be understood in several ways, some are sometimes formulated in a negative form that blurs the question as one of the tests, the questions are too long (making it difficult to understand the choices available).
  

Moreover, there is the method of treatment responses. Systems that add points (see previous section) are fairly rudimentary because they assume that proximity to a candidate depends on the number of issues where we agree with him. Now this of course depends on the type and number of questions that were posed.
Methodologically, the tests based on the calculation of the distance are more satisfactory, especially if they can take into account the intensity of preferences for a particular response. But technically, they are more complex to design and manage.

One regret to complete: some tests have clearly and completely above their methodology.

What's the point?
These tests were primarily a heuristic function. They may make you think about the candidates and maybe even your own values. We can thus think of left and noticed by a test that is close to right-wing candidates (or vice versa). These tests are sometimes invite to Enquiries of the games on a candidate that is unfamiliar or being neglected.

These tests do not say of course that you MUST vote, but who you should vote if you behave like a rational voter comparing all programs of candidates based on personal preferences.
Except we're not necessarily very rational decisions in our elections. We also respond to family or social influences. Our vote does not only depend on the political projects of the candidates but also their image. Our vote also results from emotional reflexes and emotional responses. And this dimension, rather difficult to measure, is absent from tests presented here.

FYI: testing the most viewed by the readers of this blog from April 15 to 22
My vote for me: 739 clicks
Polimètre: 539 clicks
More Vote: 463 clicks
Test World: 446 Who clicks
vote: 368 clicks
Politest: 288 clicks
What candidat.com: 276 clicks

Famous Person With Hernia

There has been debate on the best format for political debate during the primaries the PS in October 2006 and the debate over the place and role of viewers / citizens in policy discussions with the program "I have a question for you" TF1 in February. Now the debate over the debate between candidates before the first round.

A televised debate between (or) presidential candidates before the first round would be a first since this has never happened before. But do not dream, there is virtually no chance that such a debate be held on the major TV channels or even on the internet.
- Tactically, the leading candidates have no incentive to provide media exposure to their opponents less well. And the challengers are generally less known and / or not legitimized by the previous polls, requiring this type of debate.
- Legally, the applicable regulations in France required equal speaking time for candidates on television or radio. And, since April 9, beginning of the official campaign, planning conditions should be comparable. This constraint means that if a debate between the candidates was held on a television channel, it is expected to gather all candidates.

The Dilemma of a debate between candidates on the internet
To overcome this limitation, Bayrou proposed a debate on the Internet between the four main candidates April 3. Nicolas Sarkozy immediately rejected this idea, considering it " may be (that) a discussion of twelve or no debate . For its part, the "movement of the fifth power" was launched on April 5 a petition for a debate between candidates before the first round on the web .
But this proposal faces a dilemma: how to find a formula that is both democratic and understandable? It would be ironic that the Internet plays down the voice of smaller candidates at a time when traditional media apply to treat them as large, but if everyone participates, how can we practically organize an effective exchange ?
For a reflection on the multiple formats to each other and thought HERE on the site Agoravox . See also the note Gilles Klein pointblog raises questions about 4 good discussions. Thierry Crouzet has even suggested a debate in the form of a speed-dating [fortunately there has not been as many candidates as the TC wanted when he criticized the system of referrals :-) ].

was beautiful turn the problem from all angles, if you want to be fair and realistic, there is only one solution: a "debate" and twelve in which each candidate would respond successively to the same questions posed by journalists or citizens (or twelve minutes per candidate for a 3-hour debate). This formula has been repeatedly used in the U.S. during the Democratic primaries or republican.

Obviously it's not very Folichon: it looks more like a juxtaposition of discourse that a real debate (in the sense of an adversarial arguments). And if this formula is accepted by all candidates, no need for the internet.

To debate the second round
Since there will probably be no debate before the first round, you can prepare for the televised debate of the second round.
This is a rare political object since fifty years of Fifth Republic, we only had four debates of this kind. France was in 1974, one of the first countries to broadcast a televised debate between presidential candidates. Contrary to what one might expect, the United States has not been much further ahead in this area. Admittedly, 1960 a first series of televised debates between the Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, took place in 1960. But the practice was then discontinued (1) and did not resume until 1976, not without difficulties. In Europe, major televised debates between leaders of political coalitions are not systematic. Only during the 2002 election was held a televised debate for the first time in Germany between the candidates in the Chancery. And in Britain, this practice has not yet become the norm although it is regularly desired.

These debates are very popular with voters and collect huge audiences (23 million to broadcast the debate of 1974 it is true on all three channels, almost 17 million in the last debate in 1995). They give rise to exchanges of high intensity and also the famous little phrases that will be remembered long after the election.

In 1974, we remember and Valery Giscard d'Estaing had touched a low of François Mitterrand, calling him "a man of the past." Obviously, the formula had been carefully prepared for this constantly hammered VGE theme repeatedly accusing his opponent to refer to France before and afraid to project into the future with new ideas.

was less noted, however, another point of debate (29th minute) when FM VGE addressed by talking of Clermont-Ferrand, "a city that knows you and knows me well." But why mention Clermont-Ferrand? Jean-François Balmer, who at this time "replays" with Jacques Weber debates of 1974 and 1981 at the Theatre de la Madeleine , recently gave me the key to this little conundrum is the city which is native Anne Pingeot. And one can imagine, from CCV, the allusion was not accidental but intended to destabilize FM (2), or at least make him understand that he was aware of his life afecta.

_________ (1) The Past Presidents are reluctant to discuss with their opponent and also because of audiovisual regulation on equality between candidates.
(2) Reported also by Ariane Chemin and Géraldine Catalano in their work on Mitterrand a family secret (Stock, 2005)

To see or see again: The second round of debates from 1974 to 1995 on DVD produced by INA .

Car Engine Sound Loud,spinning

First Vote, first kiss

The first vote is like the first kiss: we remember his life ...

For young people who were granted citizenship - there are about 800,000 each year - the first election and the first vote is particularly noteworthy. Various surveys have shown that the image of our experiences in our childhood and our personality structure, the first contact with an election determines lasting about politics and voting behavior later.
Having participated early in an election not only familiarizes individuals with this form of expression and makes it natural and it also increases the positive feelings towards politics and civic engagement. Having lived an active campaign and animated strengthens self-efficacy of citizens and encourages regular participation in elections. Conversely, if the first season that was experienced was nothing at stake, it is more likely to abstain thereafter. This is shown in Mark Franklin Voter Turnout & the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

And Marie-Helene, one can listen HERE , confirms for the first time voting in the presidential election of 1969, she found the results of the first round so pathetic and deplorable "that she decided not to vote again (but it was reinstated for the 2007 election).
This testimony is part of a set of audio recordings will be found on the site Memories campaign, where every day of voters or political actors recount a memory of a past presidential campaign. Exciting.

Coming on this blog:
- Debates on debates
- The effects of media on the election: theory of theories
machines - to know who to vote

Jockstrap On Cruise Ship

Voting machines (continued) The

During the 2007 presidential election, 82 communes representing almost 1.5 million voters, will not use a paper ballot and a ballot box as usual, but a voting machine. This causes a lot of fears and protests and some municipalities, like that of Couëron , regret having already embarked on this adventure.

On 29 March, the Constitutional Council issued a press release and a note on the voting machines . He recalls that they are allowed since 1969 (art. L. 57-1 of the Election Code) for municipalities with more than 3500 inhabitants. It further states that use voting machines to meet three objectives:
- economic: to reduce the costs of organizing elections and expedite the counting of results on the evening of poll.
- ecological eliminate paper ballots.
- Social : allow easier access to voting procedures for persons with disabilities.

short history of voting machines

Act 1: is the law of 10 May 1969 aa authorized the use of voting machines (then electro-mechanical systems) in France. The objective then was to fight against electoral fraud. The first machines were used during the 1973 legislative elections, but in total only 600 units were purchased by the Ministry of the Interior before being scrapped in 1988.

Act 2: After this first introduction of voting machines failed, a debate on electronic voting was developed from the mid-1990s with the advent of the internet. Election.com American society, including the French subsidiary was hosted by Regis Jamin (who has now created Election-Europe.com ) made the promotion of electronic voting and some towns such as Brest, Issy-les-Moulineaux or Vandoeuvre, engaged in this way. However, the Interior Ministry, opposed any use of the Internet for political elections, "the absence of passage in a voting booth does not allow the voter to protect against possible external pressure." For its part the National Commission on Informatics and Liberties (CNIL) issued repeatedly reservations about electronic voting, it does not protect personal data (see his opinion of April 2, 2002 and its resolution of 1 st July 2003).

Act 3: The option Internet voting is dismissed, the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced in September 2003 at the Forum in Issy-les-Moulineaux, the revival of voting machines. In the months that followed, three models of voting machines were approved and used by a dozen municipalities in the local elections, regional and European 2004. In the referendum of May 29, 2005, 55 municipalities (Brest, Le Havre, Boulogne-Billancourt, Antony) had well-equipped, which accounted for 837 polling stations and just under one million voters. The constitutional council indicates that the use of these machines has resulted in no rise to any litigation. But will he do the same this year?

A mounting opposition to voting machines

For several years, computer scientists and a few citizens - first and foremost the indefatigable Peter Muller of democratic backsliding, now called computer-to- vote.org and the CREIS - rallied against electronic voting or voting machines. recent months, opposition took some extent and an online petition to maintain the paper ballot has been launched (almost 50,000 signatories to today's date).

Opponents of voting machines to refute the arguments generally advanced in favor of voting machines.

1. They note that the savings generated by the voting machines are far from obvious. Certainly, we can print fewer ballots and the salaries of municipal officials will be less important (because will not have to pay for the long hours of counting). But the purchase of machinery which cost about 4000 euros per unit will be shown, if you count one machine per polling station, at least 3.3 million euros (but it would actually close to 5 million euros).
2. They stress that the machines probably will slow the voting process, past experience shows that some voters, particularly older ones, find it difficult to practice this new way of voting.
3. Finally, one wonders what will happen in case of failure, temporary or permanent, machinery: this mean there that some votes will not be taken into account, is there provision solutions parts and boxes and ballots back?

More fundamentally, and therein lies the real problem opponents of voting machines call into question their integrity or reliability . Some raise the specter of manipulation (software voting machines can be programmed to distort the vote). Computer scientists have also found it possible to know the distance recorded votes by the voters. That it falls within the fantasy of Big Brother, a serious doubt is cast on the ability of voting machines to record votes properly.

For these reasons, opponents of the voting machines demanding a moratorium and opening a real debate on the issue. Some also ask that each vote conducted on a machine results in a paper trail (preserved in an urn closed for recount in disputed cases) a clever way to ruin the main supposed advantage of voting machines: savings paper.

For now, the voting machines appear to have only two advantages:

• they remove the phase of vote counting . And that's probably what convinced the mayors who bought the machines because, in many municipalities, it is increasingly difficult to find volunteers to participate in the recount.
• they institutionalize the white vote . The 1969 Act provides that the power of a white vote must be provided on the voting machines. Voting machines are disappearing category "invalid votes" (gathering to cast paper ballots do not conform such as erasures or newsletters, or newsletters of two different candidates in the same envelope) and thus allow those who want to express a vote white to count as such without being confused with those who are wrong.

For information :

• site computer-to-vote.org is a wealth of information to be missed .
• Rubric Electronic Voting Site Padawan.info , very clear and well informed, is also worth a visit.
• The record of e-democracy CREIS (Centre for research and education in computer science and society) that includes some very good links, especially to the CNIL.
• The site of France Election , a company that sells the machines NEDAP in France, where we find answers to opponents of the machines to vote.

Tags: electronic voting - voting machines - presidential - election

Titleist Ap2 Irons Counterfeit

Guignols they influence the election?

After the 1995 presidential election has sometimes been said that of Puppets the news had contributed to the victory of Jacques Chirac by making nice. Today, we question the same way: Puppets are they going to influence the presidential election by making Sarkozy dislike?

The political cartoon is a special form of comment. It derives its strength from its accessibility (a drawing is more easily understood than a speech), economy of means (a puppet replaces lengthy explanations), simplification of reality (the cartoon magnifies certain aspects of things and deliberately obliterated in others). By using humor, the cartoon has a dual function: it gives pleasure and makes the public good provision, it allows statements that otherwise would not be acceptable.


Watching the Puppets?
In this campaign period, the Horns are viewed daily by 2.5 3 million viewers (1). We know that their audience is quite typed: young (more than half of viewers are under 35 years), male (over 2 / 3 men), higher grade than the rest of the population (40% have at least level Bac + 2), significantly more interested in politics than the average voter.
is also a public rather anti-Sarko: 58.5% of those who watch Canal Plus between 19h and 20h30 say they are entirely agree with the proposal "Nicolas Sarkozy is disturbing" (17 against 5% of those who watch 20 hours of TF1 and 34% of those who watch the 20h de France 2 (2).
But the hearing of the Puppets is likely well beyond télépectateurs are watching TV, because we often tell friends or colleagues cartoons or sequences the most significant issue.

The Puppets influence people: yes, but the others!
In 1995, during a survey, voters were asked if they thought the French Horns had an influence on the vote of the people. Answer: yes and 56% (22% very and 34% somewhat). But when asked if these same people had Guignols influence their own vote, we had only 12% Yes (3).
This result is consistent with many surveys, many people think that the media have a strong impact on others but not themselves personally.

This does not mean that the Horns have no influence.
They are one of many information sources that contribute to shaping the image of candidates. But not alone: voting is a complex process that reflects both the social environment to which we belong - and sometimes family traditions - the candidates' positions on certain issues that are important to heart or our appreciation of their personality according to their behavior or statements at key moments of political life.

In general, the information that we receive during the campaign only moderately affect our voting intentions. They play mostly on the choice of a candidate within one political camp or our intention to participate or not to vote. Our prior political orientations
play consistently as a powerful filter that leads us to disregard the information unfavorable to the candidates that we like to retain more or those that reinforce our beliefs. But sometimes an event occurs particularly strong during the election campaign that brings us to substantially modify our assessments of candidates.

Sources:
(1) Médiamétrie, week of 26 March to 1 April 2007. March 28, the hearing was thus 5.2% (1 point = 560,000 viewers).
(2) Barometer policy CEVIPOF , 4 th wave.
(3) Louis Harris Poll conducted February 9, 1995 among a representative sample of people aged 18 and older.


More images of candidates and the effects of the media?

The book How does one become President (e) of the republic? The strategies of the candidates (Robert Laffont).
particular chapter 6, which analyzes how images are formed of candidates and Chapter 7 which explains what we know (and pourqoi we know so little) on the effects of media.


Tags: Puppets - influence - vote - media

Replacement Stratos Boat Seats

Big event or not?

Today April 4, 2007, rumors circulated in Paris on an important event on Nicolas Sarkozy that could significantly affect the campaign of the candidate of the UMP. The information does not interest me not in itself but first as a rumor and then as a possible campaign event:
- How Will it spread? The will does it appear on the internet before it (possibly) distributed by traditional media?
- The dynamics of a campaign she can be overwhelmed by events?
- At what information voters are they more susceptible?
Let's open the eye ...