France needs to learn some lessons from the presidential election.
Especially on the role of poles. Many are wondering to what extent emergency elections in a democracy can turn against.
I will explain: In the last weeks of the first round, the snowfall of polls created a useful voting requirement, with voters no longer having to vote for their favorite candidate, they came forward to vote for the person with the best chance of blocking the candidate they feared.
On the left, voters leaned towards Jean-Luc Melenchon, who often rejected his radicalism in hopes of reaching the second round.
In the so-called national right, voters leaned towards Marine Le Pen to prevent Jean-Luc Melenchon from going to the second round.
In other words, voters vote less on projects than on polls, which explains and guides election behavior less than it produces.
Similarly, they are often constructed by claiming to explain public opinion. For example, they explain that socio-economic problems (health, education, purchasing power, etc.) suppress everything else.
However, when it comes time to vote, they forget that the factors that drive voters to the polls are not of the same nature. Other variables are required.
The PLQ in Quebec gives an example. If this party, despite its programming efforts and the credibility of its historic government, is condemned to the margins at this point, it is because it is disconnected from the French-speaking Quebec. There is no identity link with him anymore.
On the contrary, if Franకోois Legalt had such a strong bond with the French-speaking Cubakers, he would have passed Bill 21, which would have driven out the liberals who called them intolerant and made them proud.
I draw a lesson from this: Polls are very necessary, but they can sometimes make us lazy and obscure the fact that they say they are shining.