There are a few lessons to be learned from the French presidential election.
Especially on the role of polls. Many wonder to what extent the polls, essential in a democracy, can turn against it.
Let me explain: in the last weeks of the first round, the avalanche of polls created a useful voting requirement pushing voters to vote no longer for their favorite candidate, but for the one who had the best chance of blocking the candidate they feared.
Influencers
On the left, voters turned to Jean-Luc Mélenchon, whose radicalism they often disavowed, in the hope of making it to the second round.
In what is called the national right, voters turned to Marine Le Pen to prevent Jean-Luc Mélenchon from going to the second round.
In other words, voters vote less according to projects than to polls, which describe electoral behavior less than they produce and guide it.
Likewise, they often construct public opinion by claiming to describe it. For example, they will explain that socio-economic issues (health, education, purchasing power, etc.) crush all the others.
They forget, however, that when it comes time to vote, the issues that drive voters to the polls are not of the same nature. Other variables are necessary.
Quebec
The example of the PLQ in Quebec is telling. If this party, despite its programmatic efforts and its historical governmental credibility, is condemned to the margins at this time, it is because it is disconnected from French-speaking Quebec. He no longer has an identity link with him.
Conversely, if François Legault retains such a strong bond with French-speaking Quebecers, it is because he passed Bill 21, which gave them a boost of pride, in addition to driving out the Liberals who called them intolerant.
I draw a lesson from this: polls are essential, but they can sometimes make us lazy, and obscure the reality they claim to illuminate.