Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T18:15:25.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Voting in France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert K. Gooch
Robert K. Gooch*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the results of the federal form of government of the United States, under which suffrage and elections are made primarily the concern of the several states, has been the comparatively small part played in practical national politics by controversies relating to voters and voting. The great reform bills and representation of the people acts in England, as well as the conditions in that country under which the acts were adopted, have no close parallels in American political history. Still less closely does the history of this country in these matters resemble that of France. The experience of the Third Republic has been filled with controversy concerning the organization of the electoral power. The limits to this organization are indeed set by the stipulation of the constitution that “the Chamber of Deputies shall be elected by universal suffrage”; but within these limits considerable latitude for change is assured by the qualifying phrase, “in the conditions determined by electoral law.” Change has been frequent, and change has been attended by the controversy mentioned. Thus, there have been since 1875 no fewer than five alternate adoptions of scrutin uninominal and scrutin de liste; and since the separation of church and state was consummated in the beginning of the present century, the question of electoral reform has probably been the chief single issue of internal French politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 1926 , pp. 299 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Loi relative à l'organisation des pouvoirs publics (25–28 féVrier 1875), art 1er, §2: La Chambre des députés est nommée par le suffrage universel dans les conditions déterminées par la loi électorale.

2 Esmein, , Éléments de droit constitutionnel (7e éd., Paris, 1921), T. II, pp. 298–299 Google Scholar; Duguit, , Traité de droit constitutionnel (2e éd., Paris, 1921–1924), T. II, pp. 564 ff.Google Scholar; Hauriou, , Précis de droit constitutionnel (Paris, 1923), p. 535 nGoogle Scholar.

3 Carrère, et Bourgin, , Manuel des partis politiques en France (Paris, 1924), p. 14 Google Scholar. Cf. also Lavisse, Histoire de France coniemporaine, T. 8e, L'évolution de la 3e République, par Ch. Seignobos (Paris, 1921), pp. 269 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 The bibliography for the subject is not extensive. Perhaps the most satisfactory single work is Enfière, André, Le vote familial (Paris, 1923)Google Scholar. The two principal university theses are Landrieu, , Le vote familial (Lille, 1923)Google Scholar, and Fosse, , Le vote familial (Montpellier, 1924)Google Scholar. Two earlier theses are Carpentier, , L'organisation de la famille et le vote familial (Paris, 1913)Google Scholar, and Boucairan, , La famille nombreuse dans l'histoire et de nos jours (Montpellier, 1920)Google Scholar. For documents and works other than those cited in the notes of this article, reference may be made to the bibliography contained in M. Landrieu's thesis, pp. 99–100.

5 Enfière, op. cit., p. 42, and preface by J.—L. Breton, p. 5. Certain pre-war statistics are of interest. In 1914 there were 11,185,078 voters, of whom 8,586,355 voted. The proposed system would in 1914 have given about 38,000,000 voters. The population of France in 1911 was 39,602,200 or, with foreigners subtracted, 38,032,296. In addition to the 11,000,000 voters, the remainder of those who would have been affected by family voting was thus distributed: married women, 8,140,000; widows, 2,385,000; divorcées, 85,000; daughters over twenty-one, 2,000,000; boys, 7,400,000; and girls, 6,780,000. These figures are taken from J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 252, pp. 288 ff.

6 Landrieu, op. cit., pp. 7–12, p. 30. The influence is largely that of Le Play, Victor Hugo, Auguste Comte, and others of this school.

7 This situation is sketched in many places, e.g. Landrieu, op. cit., pp. 43 ff; Fosse, op. cit., pp. 159 ff.; Enfière, op. cit., pp. 13 ff. It is the illustrious French economist, Charles Gide, who is responsible for the famous expression: “La France est un îlot de sucre qui fond.” M. Fosse concludes his thesis with these words: “Il s'agit done, pour notre pays, d'une question de vie ou de mort. Si pour vivre, il faut bouleverser nos institutions presentes et opérer d'audacieuses réformes faisons-le sans héater, tant pis pour les principes.”

8 These were the organizations replaced respectively by the reforms of Cleisthenes and of Servius Tullius. Cf. Hauriou, op. cit., p. 614, and Fosse, op. cit., pp. 63 ff.

9 M. Fosse (op. cit., pp. 78 ff.) has unearthed many instances in which the political rô1e of the family has in mediæval and modern times been recognized in foreign legislation. The most striking mediæval examples are Andorra and San Marino. The reform bill of 1832 in England mentions the head of the family; and in some way recognition is made of heads of families in Mexico, Chili, Equador, Peru, Salvador, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Brazil, and Belgium. The last-mentioned country naturally receives especial attention in France. Reference may be made to Barthélemy, , L'organisation du suffrage et l'expérience beige (Paris, 1912)Google Scholar, and Dupriez, , L'organisation du suffrage universel en Belgique (Bruxelles, 1901)Google Scholar. Cf. also J. O., 1911, Docs. Ch., p. 2200, p. 2201; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 17.

10 Cf. Hauriou, op. cit., pp. 614–15; Fosse, op. cit., p. 77.

11 The reaction is attributed to Le Play and his school. See Fosse, op. cit., and cf. Landrieu, op. cit., pp. 30–36.

12 Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., p. 13. On the marble façade of the Hôtel du Cheval Blanc at Bergues are these words of the poet: “Un jour viendra, je n'en doute pas, où le père de famille aura autant de voix qu'il y a de vieillards, de femmes et d'enfants à son foyer, car dans une soeiété mieux faite, ce n'est pas l'individu, c'est la famille qui est l'unité permanente. L'individu passe, la famille reste; le principe de la conservation sociale est là; on le développera pour donner à la démocratie autant de stabilité qu'à la monarchie.”

13 J. O., 1er août 1871, p. 2350.

14 J. O., 22 août 1871, p. 2871, annexe no. 435. Cf. J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 252, p. 290. See also Landrieu, op. cit., p. 13–14; Fosse, op. cit., pp. 94 ff.

15 M. de Douhet and M. de Gueydon. J. O., 2 août 1871, p. 2373.

16 Landrieu, op. cit., p. 14. This organization publishes a Bulletin at 10 rue Vivienne in Paris.

17 Séances et travaux de l'Académie des sciences morales et politiques, T. 49 (1898), p. 138. Cf. Landrieu, loc. cit. Google Scholar

18 Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., pp. 18–23.

19 Ibid., pp. 99–100. M. Landrieu gives references to the minutes of various meetings of such leagues as well as to those of the conseils and commissions mentioned.

20 Landrieu, op. cit., p. 15. Cf. Revue hebdomadaire, 1er mai 1909.

21 J. O., 8 juillet 1911, Débs. Ch., p. 2664; J. O., 1911, Docs. Ch., no. 1135, p. 2200. Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., p. 25; Fosse, p. 105.

22 J. O., 1914, Docs. Sén., no. 325, p. 635. Cf. Duguit, op. cit., T. II, p. 451; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 15–16.

23 J. O., 1917, Docs. Ch., no. 3910. Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., p. 16.

24 J. O., 1916, Docs. Ch., no. 2618, p. 1593; and cf. J. O., 21 octobre 1916, Débs. Ch., p. 310; J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 252, p. 288; Landrieu, op. cit., 16; Fosse, op. cit., p. 115.

25 J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 252, p. 289. Cf. also Fosse, op. cit., p. 113. Landrieu (op. cit., p. 26) appears to make a small mistake in this matter.

26 In addition to his efforts in Parliament, M. Roulleaux-Dugage has written important magazine and newspaper articles in favor of family voting. These latter are to be found in the Révue politique et parlementaire (mars 1918) and in Le Matin (lundi, 5 mars 1923).

27 J. O., 1919, Docs. Sén., no. 337, p. 504.

28 Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., pp. 28–29.

29 J. O., 31 juillet 1920, Débs. Ch., p. 3319. Cf. also J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 1482; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 25; Fosse, op. cit., p. 105.

30 J. O., 4 avril 1919, Débs. Ch., p. 1704. Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., p. 26.

31 J. O., 16 mai 1919, Débs. Ch., pp. 2306 ff. Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., p. 26; Fosse, op. cit., p. 115.

32 For lists v. J. O., loc cit., and p. 2328.

33 M. Breton has since been elected to the Senate. He is a former minister and is author of a preface to the monograph on family voting by M. Enfière already mentioned.

34 J. O., 31 Janvier 1920, Débs. Ch., p. 92; J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 252, p. 288. Cf. Landrieu, op. cit., p. 27; Fosse, op. cit., p. 116.

35 For lists see J. O., op. cit.

36 Cf. Landrieu, p. 27. M. Roulleaux-Dugage added in considerable degree to his supporters by abandoning a dogmatic assertion of the principle that voting is the personal right of every citizen.

37 J. O., 8 décembre 1923, Débs. Ch., p. 395.

38 Fosse, op. cit., p. 116, p. 152 n. The whole situation with respect to the electoral system appears for the present indefinite. The accession of the Radicals meant the doom of proportional representation; and a return to the principle of scrutin uninominal is probably assured. However, application of this principle is difficult. In July, 1925, the committee on universal suffrage in the Chamber was unable to agree on any one of several measures proposed, and the matter was postponed to the session which is under way at present. Cf. Le Temps, 10 juillet 1925, p. 2 Google Scholar.

39 Art. 32 bis.

40 Revue de l'Alliance nationale, no. 123, octobre 1922, p. 309 Google Scholar. Cf. Enfière, op. cit., p. 42 n; Landrieu, op. cit., pp. 28–29; Fosse, op. cit., pp. 135–136.

41 Cf. Enfière, op. cit., p. 65; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 37; Fosse, op. cit., pp. 139 ff.

42 J. O., 1er août 1871, p. 2350; and cf. J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., no. 252, p. 290.

43 According to the amendment proposed by M. de Douhet to the measure of M. de Jouvenel, a widow would have been possessed of a vote which she could not, however, employ for herself. Her right was to be exercised by a son, if of age. If she were without children, the vote could not be used; and if a son were a minor, the vote was to remain unused until such son became of age. Of course, if she should remarry, the husband would use the vote. J. O., août 1871, p. 2373; and cf. J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., loc. cit.

44 J. O., 8 juillet 1911, Débs. Ch., p. 2664; and J. O., 1911, Docs. Ch., no. 1135, p. 2200. Cf. also J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., loc. cit.

45 J. O., 1920, Docs. Ch., p. 92; no. 252, p. 288 ff.; no. 1482, p. 3319. The text of the proposal is of interest:

Art. 1er—Sont électeurs tous les Français, sans distinction de sexe ni d'âge, à l'exception de ceux qui se trouvent dans l'un des cas d'incapacité prévus par la loi.

Art. 2—Le père de famille exerce le droit de suffrage pour lui-même et pour ses enfants mineurs des deux sexes, légitimes ou naturels reconnus.

Art. 3—En cas de décès, d'incapacité légale ou d'absence judiciairement présumée ou déclarée du père de famille, le droit de suffrage est exercé par la mère en personne pour elle-même et pour ses enfants mineurs.

Art. 4.—En cas etc. du père et de la mère, l'enfant mineur est représenté au scrutin par son tuteur ou curateur. En cas d'adoption, le mineur adopté est représenté par l'adoptant.

Art. 5.—Le nombre des suffrages appartenant à chaque électeur en vertu des dispositions qui précèdent est fixé chaque année au moment de la revision des listes électorales.

Tous les électeurs figurent sur les listes, mais avec mention de représentant légal pour ceux qui ne doivent pas voter personnellement.

Art. 6.—Chaque citoyen ayant l'exercice personnel de son droit de voter reçoit, en temps utile, une carte électorale qui porte, s'il y a lieu, outre son propre nom, l'indication nominative des personnes qu'il doit représenter au scrutin.

L'électeur dépose dans l'urne autant de bulletins séparés que sa carte lui donne de suffrages à exprimer et l'émargement de toutes les personnes ainsi représentées se fait alors sur la liste générale des inscrits.

46 In the amendment of M. de Douhet, it was stipulated that the child shou be five years of age in order to bring an extra vote to the father. An amendment of M. de Gueydon would have fixed six as a maximum number of votes for the father of a family. The proposal of 1914 in the Senate (v. supra) would have given votes only for male children.

47 M. Lemire in a letter to M. Posse (op. cit., p. 113 n) explains the principles underlying his proposal. He concludes his letter thus: “En résumé nous nous en tenons aux trois types d'électorats suivants, faciles à déterminer, parcequ'ils correspondent à des situations sociales distinctes: 1° l'électorat à tout citoyen majeur, c'est le droit de l'individu; 2° l'électorat à tout homme marié ou veuf avec enfant, c'est le droit de la famille; 3° l'électorat à tout père d'au moins quatre enfants vivants non électeurs, c'est le droit de la race.” It may be noted that in this letter M. Lemire has changed the number of children necessary for the extra vote from three to four. A slight variation in the proposal of M. Peyroux (supra) consisted in suggesting one vote for the father of a child and two votes for the father of five or more.

48 Enfière, op. cit., p. 19.

49 M. Enfière's work cited is almost entirely a careful examination of the various objections to family voting with an attempted refutation of each. Arguments against the scheme are also answered in the theses of M. Landrieu and M. Fosse.

50 Cf. Enfière, op. cit., pp. 22 ff.

51 Cf. ibid., pp. 24–29.

52 Cf. ibid., pp. 40 ff.; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 40, pp. 58 ff., pp. 80 ff.; Fosse, op. cit., pp. 16–60.

53 M. Hauriou (op. cit., p. 615), without making it clear whether he himself is confused by this simple logical fallacy, holds that the instinctive opposition of the French people to plural voting is a conclusive argument against family voting. M. Duguit appears to see more clearly. He says (op. cit., T. II, p. 451): “Il suffit de marquer nettement que le vote plural n'est pas, en soi, contraire à la notion de souveraineté nationale et que l'on peut logiquement, en effet, soutenir que le vote familial est le seul système électoral qui réalise vraiment le suffrage universel intégral, puisque par lui seulement il peut y avoir autant de suffrages émis qu'il y a d'unités composant la collectivité nationale.”

54 M. Roulleaux-Dugage concludes his article in Le Matin with these words: “L'intérêt national est, par conséquent, d'accord avec l'équité sociale pour que cette réforme essentielle soit réalisée le plus tôt possible. Scrutin majoritaire ou proportionnel est d'un intérêt secondaire par comparaison parceque purement politique. Au contraire, la réalisation de cette grande réforme sociale qu'est le suffrage universel intégral présente un intérêt primordial parceque de son adoption ou de son rejet dépendent les destinées du pays.”

55 Cf. Enfière, op. cit., pp. 30 ff.; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 39.

56 Cf. Enfière, op. cit., pp. 35 ff. It was on this ground alone that the adverse committee report of M. Bérard was made in the Senate to the proposal of M. de Las-Cases. See supra.

57 Enfière, op. cit., p. 38.

58 Cf. ibid., pp. 64 ff.; Landrieu, op. cit., p. 41.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.