Is proportional election more democratic?

The election is not a mirror of society. It is about choosing representatives capable of making decisions on behalf of the nation.

Why not reform the voting method for the election of our deputies by establishing a proportional voting system? In support of this ambition, rekindled in particular since this summer, some assert that proportional representation would be more democratic than the majority vote, traditionally preferred under the V^e Republic. We still need to clarify what we mean by “more democratic”. Let's start with the obvious: any voting method, a mechanism for transforming votes into seats, is democratic. With an equal electorate, we cannot prioritize voting methods in this way.

There are certainly major differences between majority voting, traditionally seen as more effective, and proportional representation, often seen as fairer because it would allow a finer representation of the diversity of opinions in the country. Because we imagine that it is closest to voters' sensitivities, the second presents the appearance of electoral justice and democratic virtues. The equation, however, is not that simple. First of all, we must dispel the idea that majority voting, because it ignores political minorities, would be undemocratic.

Such a hypothesis can only convince in a specific hypothesis: when the distortion between the votes cast and the seats allocated leads to the overthrow of the majority and the opposition – the minority artificially becoming the majority. However, this is unlikely in majority voting due to the “bonus” tendentially conferred on the party that comes first. Furthermore, this vision is based on a misconception of the election.

The latter is not a thermometer allowing us to take the temperature of society, nor a published diary: through it, it is a question of weighing, ultimately, on the choice of the government, on its decisions and on the general direction in which laws will be adopted in the future. The purpose of such an election is to choose representatives who are entrusted with the task of producing the will of the nation in the name of the political community.

Finally, it is appropriate to reject the thesis according to which a parliamentary assembly is primarily intended to be a mirror of society. Misleading, this idea amounts to reducing parliamentary representation to the representativeness of deputies, when it is only a small part of it. In terms of the traditional conception of representation, the entire Nation entrusts the entire Parliament with the task of making decisions on its behalf. The multiple opinions of voters can only ever be embodied in broad terms in the National Assembly.

For these different reasons (and many others), let us be wary of the false seductions of proportional representation, which cannot be considered “more democratic” than majority voting.

The majority system distorts political representation. The Assembly must become the place for building the general will.

The political life of a country depends on its constitution, the weight of its history, its demography, its sociological structure, and the influence of religions. It also depends on the voting method, that is to say, the methods of transforming votes into seats. The renovation of political life requires a modification of the voting method for the election of deputies.

One of the causes of the crisis of confidence of citizens in their institutions is that they “feel” little or poorly represented. And this feeling is explained by an electoral law, the majority vote, which reduces and distorts political representation. With this ballot, voters are forced to vote in the second round for candidates whose ideas they do not share, and political parties are not free from their alliances but forced into artificial gatherings, even dangerous bargaining.

Rebuilding confidence therefore requires the adoption of a rationalized one-round proportional ballot. The quality recognized in proportional voting is political honesty since it guarantees each major current of opinion representation in the Assembly in accordance with its influence in society. Proportional voting produces desired alliances since, not being imposed by electoral technique, they are constructed by politics, by the observation of convergences, by discussion and agreement on a government program. And the Assembly becomes the place for political debate and the construction of the general will.

Another undisputed quality of proportional representation is that it promotes political deliberation, whereas the figure of the “godillot deputy” is the consequence of majority voting. “Managing the changes caused by the crisis requires a high capacity for social dialogue and political debate; majority voting facilitates neither. » These words, made by Pierre Joxe during the introduction of proportional voting in 1985, are still relevant. The majority system hardens antagonisms and harms the search for compromise. Reconnected by the proportional ballot to the political diversity of the society which recognizes itself in it, the National Assembly will regain the confidence of citizens and with it the legitimacy and authority necessary for its positioning at the center of the political space.

An expected objection: the specter of ministerial instability and the return to IV^e Republic. But the instability is caused by the play of the parties which decide to leave the majority coalition and not because of the voting method. And it can be reduced by the introduction of the constructive motion of censure, which obliges the deputies who bring down a government to propose the name of the prime minister who should succeed the one dismissed. With this system, in force in Germany and Spain, the Barnier government would not be overthrown, unless the NFP and the RN agreed on the name of its replacement…

Against proportionalby Julien Jeanneney, Tracts/Gallimard, 2024.

Six Theses for continued democracyby Dominique Rousseau, Odile Jacob, 2022.