On April 7, the president of, (Republicans-PB), defended the return of the debate on the change of the electoral system, proposing a mixed model that combines two methods of choice of deputies: the majority and the proportional.
Bring this theme to the unique year – when it is still possible to approve changes valid for the next election – it has become routine in the national political anecdote.
Until recently, the “District” was discussed, a dusty system supported by names like Eduardo Cunha e. Now Motta rescues the favorite model of toucans: the mixed.
But which “mixed system”? The Mexican model, easier to understand and popular with lay people? The German, the only one truly proportional, but allows float in the number of chairs in Parliament? Or the Scottish, which avoids fluctuation but does not fully correct distortions of the district vote?
If you don’t know, probably the noble deputy either.
Called by the specialized bibliography of “Additional Member Systems”, these models seek to unite the best of both worlds: the proximity between elected and voters provided by the district vote and justice in the distribution of chairs between the parties, offered by the proportional rule. This combination also reduces party fragmentation compared to an exclusively proportional system, but would keep incentives for parties to organize themselves nationally, presenting clear platforms.
The proportional component also fulfills a key role in representing voters whose preferences are not based on localist issues, but on programmatic values or causes – as it was, for example, the case of green parties in the second half of the 20th century, which managed to elect representing this type of system.
Still, mixed systems are not simple. In a country where many say voters do not even understand the current proportional system, is that the most urgent reform?
Moreover, its adoption would require constitutional change – perhaps, in the German model, which respects the final proportionality.
More important than the model, it is worth asking: what problem is to solve, the supposed distance between representatives and represented? Now, Brazilian politics is precisely criticized for its excessive personalism.
On the other hand, the reform approved in 2017 – which ended proportional coalitions and instituted performance clauses – has already been fighting fragmentation. In just one cycle, the fall in the number of parties was expressive. With the increase in the clause to 2.5% by 2026 and 3% in 2030, the tendency is to fall even more.
Meanwhile, central themes are ignored, such as the approval of the new Electoral Code and the rules for the distribution of electoral public resources. Why continue to allow the summit of the parties to control alone the destination of the billions of the Public Electoral Fund? .
Why not discuss a mixed rule here too, combining the will of party directions with some influence from society? The German model, once again, can inspire.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
