I'm not sure I fully understand Frances system and am not an expert in how the different voting systems work.
Intuitively I don't think that the majority voting system is necessarily a best representation of an entire region or country, especially in very large countries like Canada and the US where population are spread over large areas but with a select few being densly clustered in specific key areas. Using Ontario Canada as an example: if it was majority rule then a single city like Toronto could control the vote since the majority of people are clustered in one area. However, people living in that area may have very different viewpoints on what is best for the province compared to other surrounding areas. For that reason, the voting system in the country breaks the entire region into many different cohorts based on area size and population. The theory is that this system gives a better representation of the whole province rather than one small area controlling the vote. In such a system a particular party may have the greatest number of votes overall and still lose an election. I don't know if its a better or worse system (again I'm not an expert) but there is a logic to it. I can't tell if this is what France is also doing or something else entirely?
I think there are two different concepts, which one needs to differentiate, first, winner takes it all (majority voting), relative winner gets 100% of the seats, giving absolute majority to the relative winner, and the second concept is overrepresenting regions with less people over regions with a lot of people, giving more power to less dense regions. The US congress uses both concepts, two chambers, one representing the regions based on population and the other (Senate) representing the regions where every state has 2 seats regardless of the amount of people who live in the region. Weighing votes differently based on region however contradicts the one person one vote, equal vote principle.
I agree with that for sure.