A massive verdict: 83 % want a convicted official barred from office for life, against 17 % who oppose it. Nobody takes refuge in having no opinion. On this subject, everyone decides.
Men are unanimously in favour. Women also back the measure heavily, but supply the entirety of the opposition: that is where the round's nuance comes from.
By age, support is total among the 25-34s, the 45-54s and the 55-64s, and very strong among the 18-24s. Only the over-65s split in two: the oldest bracket is the only one hesitating over a permanent sanction.
The debate justifies the verdict through the demand for exemplary conduct. The most endorsed arguments come down to one idea: an election rests on trust, certain offices demand absolute trust, and a conviction for corruption, embezzlement or abuse of power makes that office permanently incompatible. It is not a life punishment, one voice specifies, it is an incompatibility.
The thread quickly attaches names, Le Pen, Sarkozy, Marine, and one of its liveliest exchanges ends on a curt reminder: we are talking about a conviction, not a speeding ticket. One contribution was left as a voice note, in which the reasoning can be heard building out loud around the same idea: abusing voters' trust should shut the door on the next election.
The « no » camp never defends the convicted official. It contests only the automatic nature of the ban: everything depends on the seriousness of the offence, and a lifetime bar should apply only to the gravest acts, those that genuinely damage public trust. Between the two camps, then, the gap is less about the principle than about the threshold.