More than two years after those of 2022, it continues to reinterpret electoral rules and influencing the composition of. In November of that year, and filed the court against the understanding and application of the over the theme only recently defined.
Until 2017 ,. However, the coalitions allowed parties to come together to achieve this requirement, favoring party fragmentation. To reduce this problem and improve governance, Congress prohibited proportional coalitions from 2020.
As compensation, the requirement of QE was relaxed, allowing any party to participate in the distribution of chairs. In 2021, it was created, an instrument similar to coalitions, but of national coverage and minimum duration of four years. As a counterpart, the distribution of chairs to parties or federations that reached at least 80% of QE was restricted.
In February 2024, allowing any party to dispute vacancies, but chose not to change the composition of the chamber resulting from the 2022 election.
The action also questioned the minimum voting requirement for candidates. Since 2015 candidates have to get 10% of QE to occupy a chair. In 2021 the requirement was expanded: 10% of QE in chairs distributed by the party quotient and 20% for the leftover (or higher averages) phase.
This dynamic reveals two difficulties of the Supreme Court: to correctly understand the functioning and purpose of the barrier clause and the proportional system.
In 2006, the Party Court so that they could have legislative functioning and receive public resources.
The decision disregarded that this instrument is common and necessary in democracies that choose to adopt proportional representation. Germany, Israel and New Zealand, for example, adopt some such clause.
Minister rapporteur of this decision, Marco Aurélio de Mello, said the measure was “strange” and “unfair”, stating that “puts in the common ditch parties that cannot be regarded as rent parties, such as PPS, PC of B, PV and PSOL”. At the time, the central concern was with affected parties, not with the impacts on the political system or the constitutionality of the rule.
In 2020, the STF was questioned the constitutionality of the requirement of and the court opted to maintain the rule. The rapporteur justified that “the voter votes for the candidate” and that the exclusion of the rule would benefit candidates with fewer votes.
They disregarded that in the proportional open list system the voter votes on the party list, and only indicates who would like to occupy the top of the list if it was sorted. Require minimum performance of candidates, but not parties, distorts the system.
The STF stance shows a standard: its decisions oscillate according to the political context, even if it means altering rules and composition of the benches after years of mandate elapsed.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
