The deadline for legisle on a clear rule to end it on June 30. Pressured by the calendar, senators filed an urgent request for PLP 177/2023 and intend to vote it later this week.
The project, already approved by in early May, defines that the distribution of vacancies between states should follow the method of the highest averages, already used in the Brazilian electoral system, respecting the constitutional limits of at least 8 and at most 70 deputies per state. More than that, it proposes that redistribution only occurs after the next demographic census, scheduled for 2030, and increases by 18 the total number of chairs for the House of Representatives from the 2026 election.
The increase serves as compensation to states that would gain chairs with the immediate application of the proportional rule, but preserving the current size of state benches that would lose representation. The justification for this solution was the allegation that the data of the are unreliable. This argument appeared especially in the discourse of deputies, state that would be most affected by redistribution.
PLP advances by defining a clear rule that can be implemented by automatically after each census. However, it makes room for undesirable distortions, such as preventing the reduction of state benches and the absence of objective criteria to define the total number of deputies.
At this point, it is worth mentioning the classic work of Rein Taagepera (1972), which proposed a simple formula to estimate the optimal size of the legislatures: the number of representatives should be proportional to the cubic root of the population. Applying this logic to Brazil, according to estimates by political scientist Bruno Bolognesi (UFPR), we would have between 538 and 577 federal deputies – also that the 531 proposed in the PLP. The criterion seeks to balance representativeness and efficiency by preventing each parliamentarian from representing an excessive population contingent and makes communication between representatives and represented difficult.
Adopting an objective parameter such as Taagepera would allow a more qualified discussion about political representation and the ideal number of chairs per state, which is unwanted because it would make room for the revision of the minimum and maximum constitutional limits, which does not matter to political elites that benefit from these strings.
Without reviewing the 70-chairs ceiling, any expansion in the House tends to accentuate the sub-representation of more populous states, such as. Currently, the overpressure favors only the states benefited with the minimum representation, but with the approval of the PLP will also benefit Rio de Janeiro, Paraíba, Piauí, Rio Grande do Sul and Alagoas, which will have their artificially inflated bench.
There is room to improve the text. It is possible to maintain the increase of chairs as long as the proportionality between population and political representation is ensured, at least between states that are above the minimum and below the constitutional ceiling.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
