Unsurprisingly, the results show perfect agreement among rightwing and leftwing respondents on combating unemployment, which has been the top priority for decades. However, it is more surprising that leftwing and rightwing voters have the same level of interest in retirement (strong interest) and in the European Union (weak interest). Even more surprisingly, migration is not a leading concern of rightwing respondents: while 79% consider it to be important, it only places 7th in the \u201cranking\u201d of their concerns. A look back at migration is instructive: during a 2007 pre-election survey, only 23% of rightwing respondents <\/a>considered this issue to be a priority, that is 56% fewer than today. The difference between 2007 and 2017 is just as great among leftwing voters: 9% of leftwing respondents claimed to be \u201cconcerned\u201d about migration in 2007, versus 54% today.<\/p>\n Emiliano Grossman and Nicolas Sauger presented the results of a study they conducted as part of a 2012 post-election survey in Public policies and voter decision making: review of the 2012<\/a> presidential elections.<\/p>\n Their objective was to determine the gap between the opinions of voters and those of the candidates they vote for. They applied this method to four public policy areas: nuclear issues, the role of civil servants, immigration and Europe.<\/p>\n They showed that voters were generally consistent in their selections. They most often voted for candidates whose positions were closest to theirs. But this did not apply to all issues. Nuclear issues were minor, for example. And other issues were more partisan, such as immigration, which was more important for the right. The researchers concluded by highlighting a point that is still relevant in 2017. Centrist candidates were always closer to the positions of their electorate, and extremist candidates were the farthest. However, this distance did not prevent the latter from winning at the ballot box, as voters primarily supported them over a specific issue even if they were not in general agreement with their platform. Sur quoi \u00eatre d\u2019accord avec un candidat pour l\u2019\u00e9lire ?<\/p>\n This focus on the environment is but one example. Other data indicate that this insight applies to other subjects: education, secularism, foreign policy, etc.<\/p>\nWhat must change<\/h3>\n
![\"Manifestation](\"http:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/1681632614_4ab5582bc5_m.jpg\" "\\"Manifestation")
<\/a><\/span>In addition to this approach, CEVIPOF produces a Barometer of political priorities<\/a> that sheds light on the nature of these priorities. The idea is to ask respondents about the policies they would like to see change: migration policy, social assistance, defense policy, EU policy, labor market regulation, environmental policy, security, health\/retirement services, education policy, urban policy, societal issues (cultural liberalization, euthanasia, etc.). Of all these subjects, migration policy<\/a> tops the list, with very strong demand for a more restrictive policy. Meanwhile, as in the past, there is little desire for changes in labor market regulationEn compl\u00e9ment de cette approche, le CEVIPOF r\u00e9alise un Barom\u00e8tre des priorit\u00e9s politiques<\/a> qui permet de mieux conna\u00eetre la nature de ces priorit\u00e9s. Il s\u2019agit d\u2019interroger les sond\u00e9s sur les politiques qu\u2019ils voudraient voir changer : politique migratoire, aides sociales, politique de d\u00e9fense, politique europ\u00e9enne, r\u00e9gulation du march\u00e9 du travail, politique environnementale, s\u00e9curit\u00e9, prestations sant\u00e9\/retraites, politique \u00e9ducative, politique urbaine, enjeux soci\u00e9taux (lib\u00e9ralisation culturelle, euthanasie etc.). Parmi tous ces sujets, la politique migratoire<\/a> arrive en t\u00eate avec une tr\u00e8s forte demande pour une politique plus restrictive. En revanche, peu de souhaits de changement sont exprim\u00e9s, hier comme aujourd\u2019hui, en mati\u00e8re de r\u00e9gulation du march\u00e9 du travail<\/a>.<\/p>\nThe evolution of priorities since 2014<\/b> \r\nA comparison of answers provided from June 2014 to today to the following question: What is the most important issue?<\/a><\/pre>\n
![\"By](\"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/640px-Jungle_Books_library-300x225.jpg\")
<\/b>What must be agreed with a candidate to secure vote? <\/b><\/h3>\nNew issues begetting new priorities?<\/h3>\n
![\"Centrale](\"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/800px-Centrale_nucl\u00e9aire_du_Bugey_et_champ_de_tournesol-300x225.jpg\" "\\"Centrale")
<\/a><\/span>The current campaign has seen the emergence of previously secondary topics in candidates\u2019 discourse. A good example is the environment. As Daniel Boy points out, this subject had last been discussed during an election debate in 2007, when candidates across the political spectrum had carefully considered Nicolas Hulot\u2019s environmental pact, with some even officially supporting it. Eight years later, in the run-up to COP21, only 14% of respondents in a CEVIPOF survey saw environmental policy as a priority. Today, of the 11 topics listed in the 2017 Enef survey, the environment ranks 8th, with 66% of respondents claiming to be concerned. Candidates\u2019 platforms (including the Front National\u2019s platform, which includes 7 environmental commitments) show that these developments have led to greater consideration of the environment among a growing swath of voters.<\/p>\n