Brazil Election - 5 October 2014

[buritobr]

Well, well, well...

The "surprise of september" is not a surprise anymore. There is a "big scandal" in every month of september in every even numbered year.
The "dossiê dos aloprados 1.0" didn't work in the election of 2006. The "dossiê dos aloprados 2.0" and "Erenice" didn't work in the election of 2010.

Dilma Roussef can loose the election because of the weak economy. But, probably, this scandal will not hurt her. The bribes in Petrobrás under the diretor Paulo Roberto Costa took place between 2004 and 2012. Dilma Roussef fired Paulo Roberto Costa in 2012.

[buritobr]

There is no gay marriage in Brazil. There is civil union right recognized by the Supreme Court in 2011.
The gay activists want the approval of the gay marriage. If it is not possible, they want at least that the civil union to be recognized by law and not only by a decision of the Supreme Court.

Only small candidates like Luciana Genro and Eduardo Jorge support gay marriage. Not only Marina Silva, but also Dilma Roussef and Aécio Neves do not support gay marriage. The gay activists became angry with Marina Silva because she removed gay marriage from her program after the request of Reverend Silas Mafaia, in order to have his endorsement during the campaign. And of course, they hate a candidate backed by a religious who is not only against gay marriage but also consider homossexuality a "bad behavior".

[buritobr]

Two important state polls, Ibope, September 6th-8th

State of São Paulo (22% of the Brazilian population)

President
Marina Silva (PSB) 38%
Dilma Roussef (PT) 25%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 15%
(one weak ago: Marina 39%, Dilma 23%, Aécio 17%)

Governor
Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) 48%
Paulo Skaf (PMDB) 18%
Alexandre Padilha (PT) 8%

Senator
José Serra (PSDB) 33%
Eduardo Suplicy (PT) 27%
Gilberto Kassab (PSD) 7%


State of Rio de Janeiro (8% of the Brazilian population)

President
Dilma Roussef (PT) 37%
Marina Silva (PSB) 34%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 9%
(one weak ago: Marina 38%, Dilma 32%, Aécio 11%)

Governor
Anthony Garotinho (PR) 26%
Luís Fernando Pezão (PMDB) 25%
Marcelo Crivella (PRB) 17%
Lindberg Farias (PT) 9%

Senator
Romário (PSB) 44%
César Maia (DEM) 21%


As we can see, Dilma Roussef recovered in the first and in the third most populated state in Brazil. It shows that she will perform better in the next national polls.
However, the PT is not doing well in the gubernatorial elections.

[buritobr]

Well, it is not easy to say who is better, Ibope or Datafolha.

Ibope interviews 1200 people at their homes (sometimes, this institute interviews 2000 people). Datafolha interviews 5300 people on the streets (sometimes, this institute interviews 10000 people). A bigger sample is a little bit more precise. But just a little. Professors of Statistics say that when a sample is big enough, it doesn't get much better if it gets bigger. Of course, a 100 people sample would be a very bad one, but 1200 is not.
Datafolha has a bigger sample, but the probability of having a biased sample when the people are interviewed on the streets and not in their homes is bigger.
In 2010, both Ibope and Datafolha predicted in the first round eve that Dilma would have 50% of the valid votes, and actually, she had 46,5%.

It is possible to ready a little bit more about these two polls

Metodology of Ibope: http://pesqele.tse.jus.br/pesqele/publico/pesquisa/Pesquisa/visualizacaoPublica.action?id=25324

Metodology of Datafolha: http://pesqele.tse.jus.br/pesqele/publico/pesquisa/Pesquisa/visualizacaoPublica.action?id=25305

[buritobr]

Concerning the criticism on Marina Silva, I agree with this Carta Capital article

http://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/vamos-elevar-o-nivel-da-discussao-6749.html

[buritobr]

The gay activists became angry with Marina Silva because she removed gay marriage from her program after the request of Reverend Silas Mafaia, in order to have his endorsement during the campaign. And of course, they hate a candidate backed by a religious who is not only against gay marriage but also consider homossexuality a "bad behavior".

This one of the biggest lies that has emerged in Brazil. Marina has changed her Governmental Program because that was not her personal belief. Anyone that has been following Marina's speeches, discussions and interviews will see that she NEVER endorsed gay marriage. She has been sometimes a little bit dubious, but her official position is that supports the Civil Union. In some sense, she is supporting Gay Marriage indirectly since the Judiciary System has granted Civil Union the same benefits of a Marriage. Unfortunately, there a bunch of radicals in the LGBT movement that are not capable of reading Marina's program, it offers support for Civil Union, it offers support for developing a law that fights homophobia and it is supportive of measures that make easier adoptions for gay couples. Regarding to Malafaia, despite of all the changes, he even mentioned that the words' essence were the same.

What appeals me the most is that leftist in Brazil are condemning Marina because she is a flip floper while Lula and Dilma are the best on doing this. Dilma was a proud support of legalizing abortion and now she says that she is not. Lula has made a 180o Change since 1989. During 2010, somedays before the 1st Round Election, Dilma's campaign changed her whole Governmental Program to a list of 13 points and not a single discussion has arisen from leftists in Brazils.

Nope.
Dilma Roussef was not a proud supporter of legalization of abortion. She is neither liberal nor conservative in cultural wars, like same-sex marriage, anti-homophobia education, abortion, marijuana and elimination of religious objects in state offices. She doesn't care to these issues. She said she supported legalization of abortion in 2007 only because she was asked. It was just a personal opinion. It was not a part of her political activity.
The Workers Party (PT) moved from a radical left-wing party in 1980 to a social democrat party since 2002 through a slow movement. It was not a flip flop. PT was more moderate in 1989 than it was in 1980, more moderate in 1994 than in 1989, more moderate in 1998 than in 1994, more moderate in 2002 than in 1998...

[buritobr]

Collor is running for senator from the state of Alagoas. Probably he will win. He would have no more than 5% if he ran for president. There is no sense for him to run for president.

[buritobr]

I think Pezão will have 60% in the runoff, due to Garotinho's high rejection. Upper middle class voters who voted for Denise Frossard in 2006 and Fernando Gabeira in 2010, when Sérgio Cabral was backed by the PT, will now vote for Pezão.

Bernardinho and Ellen Gracie did not want to get into the politics. PSDB though that by endorsing Pezão, the support of PMDB politicians from Rio de Janeiro would help Aécio, considering that Rio de Janeiro has the 3rd biggest population, and PSDB is usually weak there.
Probably, large economic groups from Rio de Janeiro, like Globo and Firjan, who support the PSDB at the national level and the PMDB at the state level, backed the Aezão - aliance between PMDB, PSDB and DEM, in order to avoid the victory of an evangelic populist (Garotinho, Crivella) or the victory of the left (Lindberg).  If Pezão, César Maia and a PSDB candidate run separetely, they could split the center-right vote and allow a runoff between Garotinho and Crivella or Garotinho and Lindberg.
PSDB will be satisfied with the continuation of PMDB administration in Rio de Janeiro. Cabral/Pezão work with a lot of PSDB technocrats.

[buritobr]

I am confused. Antonio Anastasia was eligible for another term as governor, no? He was elected in 2010.

Nope.

Aécio Neves resigned in March 2010 in order to run for the Senate, Anastasia was the vice governor, so, he became the governor. That's why he was "reelected" in October 2010. He was already in the office during the election. So, he is not eligible for another term.

[buritobr]

To Brazilian posters: If Marina did win, how would you rate her possibility of actually implementing environmentalist policies?
How green is she these days. Is the environment still a priority for her?

Marina Silva is not focusing her campaign on environment. She is in a battle against Aécio Neves for the right-wing votes. Environment is not a very popular issue among the kind of voter she is trying to get.

However, of course her program mentions environment. She pretends to create a "Brazilian Market of carbono emission".

This text explains the diferences between Marina's and Dilma's views on environment. It was published in a pro-Dilma site. It is in Portuguese.

http://www.cartamaior.com.br/?%2FEditoria%2FMeio-Ambiente%2FCupula-do-Clima-o-desencontro-entre-Dilma-e-Marina%2F3%2F31857

[buritobr]

Well, Brazil has a very complicated system for the election of the Chamber of Deputies (lower house of the Congress). Even many Brazilians don't understand.

There are 513 deputies. Each state has a number of seats in a proportion according to the population. But there are limits. No state can have more than 70 seats and no less than 8 seats. São Paulo, the most populous state, would have 110 deputies according to the proportion of the population, but has only 70. Roraima, the least populous state, would have 1 seat, but has 8.

The seats are filled through a proportional representation system. However, unlike PR in other countries, in Brazil, people can vote either for an individual candidate or a party (the large majority of the Brazilians vote for an individual candidate). It works like that:
Consider state X, which has 8 seats, 40000 voters, and two parties, A and B.

The Party A candidates are Pedro, José, Julia, André, Maria, Carlos, Paulo, Jorge
The Party B candidates are Sílvio, Marcelo, Flávio, Reginaldo, Felipe, Rafael, Lucas, Patricia

The results are

Partisan vote for party A: 1100
Pedro: 8200
José: 6900
Julia: 3000
André: 2300
Maria: 1900
Carlos: 900
Paulo: 500
Jorge: 200

Partisan vote for party B: 800
Sílvio: 6600
Marcelo: 3000
Flávio: 2500
Reginaldo: 800
Felipe: 600
Rafael: 300
Lucas: 200
Patricia: 200

If you add the number of partisan votes to the number of votes to the candidates of each party, Party A has 25000 votes and Party B has 15000. Considering that this state has 8 seats, according to the proportion, Party A wins 5 seats and Party B wins 3 seats. The candidates who win the seats are the ones who have the biggest number of votes in each party. So, Pedro, José, Julia, André and Maria are elected in Party A, and Sílvio, Marcelo and Flávio are elected in Party B.

Most of the Brazilians decide for whom they will vote for deputy only a weak before the election. Most of them do not care about the party. That's why it is very hard to predict the result of the election for the lower house through polls.
Many parties use famous people as candidates, in order to receive a large number of votes, and then, a large number of seats. The candidate who received the biggest number of votes in São Paulo in 2010 was Tiririca, a comedian, and probably he will receive the biggest number of votes again.

[buritobr]

Considering the Senate (upper house)
this year, only one third (27) of the 81 senators will be elected. So, the seats of the senators elected in 2006 are being contested in this election.

In 2006, PT elected only the senators in São Paulo and Acre. Probably, in São Paulo, Eduardo Suplicy will loose the reelection to PSDB candidate José Serra. But PT has big chances in Pernambuco (former Recife mayor João Paulo) and Rio Grande do Sul (former governor Olívio Dutra).
Many senators elected in 2006 were from PSDB, PFL (now, the name of this party is DEM) and PMDB. Maybe, DEM (the most conservative party) will lose ground, but PSDB will elect many senators again.
Nowadays, PMDB has 20 seats, PT has 12 seats, PSDB has 12 seats, PTB has 6 seats, PDT has 5 seats, PP has 5 seats, PR has 5 seats, PSB has 4 seats, DEM has 4 seats, PCdoB has 2 seats, PSD has 2 seats, PRB has 1 seat, PSC has 1 seat, PV has 1 seat and PSOL has 1 seat. I think the number of seats for each party will not change very much.

[buritobr]

I think it is fair that the low populated states are overrepresented in the Congress. But the Senate already does this job. Every state has three senators, no matter the population. It is understandable, considering that the senators represent the states, not the people.

Since the Senate already exists, it is not necessary the low populated states to be overrepresented and São Paulo to be underrepresented in the Chamber of Deputies too. I am against the minimum limit of 8 and the maximum limit of 70 legislators for each state. However, this rule will never change. It is necessary a constitutional ammendment to change this rule, approved by 3/5 of the chambre and the senate. Since the North and the Northeast are favored by the overrepresentation of low populated states, a constitutional ammendment like this will never be approved.

[buritobr]

Well, the left-wing parties, including PT and PCdoB, and the oppositionist PSOL, are supporting a referendum in order to change the political system. They don't mention state representation, but they support that the money for the electoral campaign should be provided by the state and not by firms's donations, in order to avoid that the economic power influence the political power. They also argue that private firms who donate money for electoral campaign receive the money back through government procurement, when the candidates they support are elected (well, it happens also in PT administrations). That's why the companies who build large public works are the main donators in electoral campaigns. PT wants also to end the vote for individual candidates in the election for the legislative branch, the system that I explained in the post before. PT considers that the voters should vote only for parties, not for individual candidates, like in the other countries who implemente proportional representation.

But the referendum should be approved by the congress...

In early september, the left-wing parties organized na unnoficial referendum... Well, but this referendum was... unnoficial.

[buritobr]

The rejection of the vote for individual candidates is not a consensus in the left. The mainstream of the PT supports the party list vote, but the left-wing of the PT considers that this changes would give too much power for the bureaucracies of the parties.

I didn't know that in Denmark people could vote for candidates too. So, the Danish system looks like Brazilian system.

On the other side, the right used to support the implementation of the pure FPTP, like the one in the USA and UK. But nowadays, the right realized that the current system allows the elected Congress to be more conservative than the elected presidents.

Green party candidate Eduardo Jorge and other centrists support a constitutional amendment to implement a mixed FPTP-PR system, like the one in Germany.

I like the German system, but I don't think it is possible to implement in Brazil. We don't have districts since 1930. I think that drawing congressional districts would be an impossible task.

[buritobr]

I watched only the end of the debate, but considering what I read in the Twitter and Facebook, probably Aécio Neves will go to the runoff.

[buritobr]

Second, it's crucial to understand the shift I mentioned above. When the PSDB was created back in 1988, it was supposed to be a "new left" political party, Brazil's own "new Labour". It's most prominent members in the beginning were well known left wing thinkers such as FHC, José Serra, José Aníbal, etc. As any "new left" group, they were pretty much a center-left party with highly pragmatical policies. The best example is the famous "infusion of capitalism" speech given by the great Mario Covas back in 1989, when he mentioned the urging need of more liberalism allied to social policies. That was pretty much the PSDB you had until 2002.

When the PT took over the federal government, it pretty much took over the center-left sweet spot the PSDB and it's older leaders occupied (perhaps a tad to the left than the PSDB used to be). Some will say the PSDB was a right wing party back then, I strongly reject this notion but I guess this depends on what one consider as left or right. Anyway, it's pretty clear PSDB members started to shift slowly to the right after 2002, slowly embracing economic liberalism less shyly and some conservative social policies (specially on law enforcement matters). This trend was accelerated in 2010 and 2012, when many toucans and close allies were elected under center-right platforms and policies, including Alckmin, Beto Richa, Aloysio Nunes, ACM Neto, etc. Alckmin is running a decidely center-right campaign this year (specially on law enforcement matters, where he's adopting a strong law and order speech) that's proving to be very successful.

Well, personally I always saw it this way: PSDB pretty much started as a classical social democratic party (including Covas supporting Lula against Collor in 1989, after not making it into the runoff). In 1990s, like many social democratic parties, PSBD embraced third way policy, as evident with FHQ famous statement of rejecting "outdated labels" such as "left" and "right". By 2000s, and with third way philosophy demise, the party simply could not shift back to the left, even if they wanted to, because there is simply not enough room.

I disagree. PSDB had never been a classical social democratic party. Unlike the European social democratic parties, PSDB had never been supported by organized labor. No big unions backed this party. PSDB was founded in 1988 by PMDB politicians unsatisfied with that party. In its early days, PSDB was a party of Congressmen and academics, not a party of interest groups of the society. Then, the interest group which became the base of the PSDB was big business and not big labor.
In the election of 1989, Covas supported Lula in the runoff not because he was against the neoliberal proposals of Collor (Covas supported privatization too), but because it was the first free presidential election after the military dictatorship, Covas and Lula were opponents of the dictatorship and Collor started his political career in the party that backed the dictatorship. Fernando Henrique Cardoso was against endorsing Lula, but at that time, Covas was more powerful in the party. After that, PSDB members, like Antônio Kandir, worked in Collor administration.
Of course, PSDB moved to the right in 1994, when it built a coalition with the conservative PFL to support Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and moved further to the right when it became the opposition party, after Lula had become the president.

PT looks like a classical social democratic party. When it was founded in 1980, it was a party of the marxist left, like the European social democratic parties founded 100 years before. Then, PT became a social democratic party. It is still on the left of European social democratic parties because PT did not go to the Third Way. It was going to the Third Way during Lula's first term (2003-2006) but moved a little bit to the left again in the second term. Both in the past, when PT was a radical left-wing party and in the present, when PT is a social democratic party, PT is supported by CUT, the biggest union of labor unions.

[buritobr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7OkDFzVrnc

This is the "other side of the coin".

Some TV broadcasts would like to invite only the three candidates who can win to participate in the debate. But the electoral law demands that candidates from all parties who have representatives in the Congress must be invited. So, not only Dilma, Marina and Aécio participate, but Luciana Genro, Eduardo Jorge, Pastor Everaldo and Levy Fidelix participate too.

In the first debate, when Luciana Genro and Eduardo Jorge supported gay marriage, legalization of abortion and legalization of marijuana, I saw many comments saying that the electoral law makes the debates more democratic, because issues that would never be discussed by the three major candidates could be discussed by the others and showed to millions of people. But if the law creates room for social liberal ideas, like the ones supported by Luciana Genro and Eduardo Jorge, it also creates room for stupid ideas. Being pro gay marriage is an opinion, being anti gay marriage is an opinion, expose hate to homossexuals is a crime.

I agree with the electoral law and I think that the "nanicos" should be allowed to participate too. But hate crimes should be punished.

[buritobr]

The biggest difference between Ibope and Datafolha is that Ibope shows a larger percentage of voters who wouldn't vote for any candidate or have not decided yet (branco/nulo/indeciso).

I think it is not hard to explain. Ibope interviews people at their homes. Datafolha interviews people at streets. When stopped by a Datafolha interviewer at the street, the probability of somenone who is not interested in the election say "sorry, I don't have time" is bigger than the probability of someone interested in the election do that. Someone who is interested in the election would be very happy in being interviewed by the poll.
Someone not interested in the election would say "I don't have time" at the street, but probably, she would not say "go away" when na interviewer knock her door at home.

That's why I think Ibope interviews a larger percentage of voters who are not interested in the election.

[buritobr]

I have already considered the possibility of voting for Luciana Genro or Eduardo Jorge. But then, I realized that they don't want to be the president. They want only to show the ideas of their parties during the campaign. That's why I will vote for Dilma Rousseff. I don't like "protest vote".

Luciana Genro and Eduardo Jorge brought very good ideas to the campaign, like the taxation of big wealthies, anti-trust laws in the media market (in order to make the media more democratic), land and urban reform, legalization of abortion, legalization of marijuana. But in order to support these issues, I vote for a Congressman who support them. These are not the most important issues for me to choose a president.

One issue supported by Luciana Genro and Eduardo Jorge which is also supported by Dilma Rousseff is increasing the relevance of direct democracy mechanisms.


My complete vote

State Deputy: Robson Leite 13013
Federal Deputy: Jean Wyllys 5005
Senator: Romário 400
Governor: Lindberg Farias 13
President: Dilma Rousseff 13

[buritobr]

Considering that now the runoff scenario between Dilma and Aécio, and between Dilma and Marina, are not too diferent, there will be no generic anti-PT strategic vote for Marina anymore. But it won't have too much impact. I think most of the Marina vote is not strategic. Most of the polls in 2013 showed Marina ahead of Aécio.


Concercing Marina's number: if past Marina voters type 43 (Green Party number, her number in 2010), they will see Eduardo Jorge's face. They would ask: why does she have a beard in the picture?

[buritobr]

State polls Ibope


São Paulo (22,4% of the Brazilian electorate)

Governor
Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) 45%
Paulo Skaf (PMDB) 19%
Alexandre Padilha (PT) 11%

President
Marina Silva (PSB) 29%
Dilma Rousseff (PT) 29%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 22%
Luciana Genro (PSOL) 1%
Pastor Everaldo (PSC) 1%


Rio de Janeiro (8,5% of the Brazilian electorate)

Governor
Luiz Fernando Pezão (PMDB) 31%
Anthony Garotinho (PR) 24%
Marcelo Crivella (PRB) 16%
Lindberg Farias (PT) 9%

President
Dilma Rousseff (PT) 37%
Marina Silva (PSB) 33%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 13%
Pastor Everaldo (PSC) 1%
Luciana Genro (PSOL) 1%


Minas Gerais (10,7% of the Brazilian electorate)

Governor
Fernando Pimentel (PT) 45%
Pimenta da Veiga (PSDB) 25%

President
Dilma Rousseff (PT) 36%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 31%
Marina Silva (PSB) 17%
Pastor Everaldo (PSC) 1%
Luciana Genro (PSOL) 1%


Distrito Federal (1,3% of the Brazilian electorate)

Governor
Rodrigo Rollemberg (PSB) 32%
Jofran Frejat (PR) 24%
Agnelo Queiroz (PT) 19%

President
Marina Silva (PSB) 36%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 24%
Dilma Rousseff (PT) 23%
Pastor Everaldo (PSC) 1%
Luciana Genro (PSOL) 1%
Eduardo Jorge (PV) 1%

[buritobr]

Minas Gerais (10,7% of the Brazilian electorate)

Governor
Fernando Pimentel (PT) 45%
Pimenta da Veiga (PSDB) 25%

President
Dilma Rousseff (PT) 36%
Aécio Neves (PSDB) 31%
Marina Silva (PSB) 17%
Pastor Everaldo (PSC) 1%
Luciana Genro (PSOL) 1%

Wow. Aecio losing his home state would be quite devastating, wouldn't it?

(Yes, I know Minas is also Dilma's home state, but given Aecio was a highly popular Governor with strong machine...)

Dilma's birth state is Minas Gerais. Dilma's home state is Rio Grande do Sul. When her party was PDT, she was the Secretary of Finance of the Municipality of Porto Alegre (state capital) between 1986 and 1988. When she was still in the PDT, she was the Secretary of Energy of the State of Rio Grande do Sul under the administration of the PT governor Olívio Dutra, between 1999 and 2002. In 2001, when the PDT decided to not endorse Dutra's administration anymore, Dilma joined the PT.

[buritobr]

Question: How politically different are Rousseff and Silva?

In few words, using American definition

Dilma Rousseff = big government
Marina Silva = small government

You can find more detalied discussion in this thread

[buritobr]

I decided to vote for Eduardo Jorge in the first round, and for Dilma Rousseff only in the second round, no matter if the opponent is Aécio Neves or Marina Silva.

I am against protest vote, and that's why I don't vote for Luciana Genro. But in the last days, Eduardo Jorge ran a serious campaign. I liked many of his proposals.