This model corresponds to the exploitation of the political potential of universal suffrage through mass organisations having the aim of mobilising electors. It was established during the stage of the emergence and development of employees’ trade unions and of mass parties associated with them which gradually become generalised by a process of emulation to the whole of the political field, as shaped by the major socio-economic divisions of industrial society. Three conditions have to be satisfied in order to move from the first to the second model. The first is that the electors should be in some way masters of their own votes and capable of joining a party while moving on from the logic of clan-like affiliation of clients: it may then be considered that the electorate has attained the threshold of individualisation. The former model was vertical, whereas this one is horizontal. Individuals come together because they resemble each other, not because they depend on the same boss. The second condition is that the electors back their party because they share a similar ideology, not because of their personal short-term interest. It is possible to speak in this connection of a threshold of politicisation. The third condition is that electors of all constituencies vote more or less in accordance with the same socio-political logic and not for reasons differing radically from one region to another. It is then possible to speak of the threshold of nationalisation.

a. Under this system, the logic of representation is socio-cultural. Parties form in line with the major social divisions (mainly the split between the self-employed and employees) and the major cultural divisions, which are generally based on religious affiliation (catholic/secular or between various Christian churches). They appeal to social groups – often consolidated by associations or trade unions – wanting these groups to be represented as such in the assemblies.

b. The logic of the selection is party-political. It is essentially the outcome of militancy. Candidature as such, and then the candidate’s position in the list, are stages in the militant’s progress. The electors ratify this choice in so far as they put in place those whom they regard as most representative of their background and therefore, from this point of view, the best of them.

c. The logic of investiture is not directly present in electors’ minds, whether in the form of the great myths, such as preparation for proletarian revolution, on the one hand, or restoration of the natural order of society, on the other. In the shorter term, the important thing is to do whatever one can to prevent trouble-makers or reactionary forces from unilaterally calling into question the implied socio-political pact. As a result, the logic of “two opposing fronts” often put forward by both sides in the 1930s is redolent rather of trench warfare than warfare on a moving front. It is a question of prevention rather than of investiture.

d. The most functional electoral system for this model is clearly the list system with proportional representation. But it may be able to cope with a plurality or majority list system if each camp exhibits the potential to gather electors together and it is therefore possible to give some strength to a coalition government outside the usual compromises of the “blocked society”.