The discusses changing the country’s electoral system to the system, which changes the way we elect representatives to, at and at.
The discussion gained strength after , in . Congressmen in favor of the issue claim to seek greater harmony between voters and deputies and to prevent criminals from entering politics.
Behind the curtains, however, members of the Legislature heard by the Sheet They say they see no impact of this system against the penetration of criminal factions in politics. For them, the center’s objective in sponsoring the project is to increase the group’s power and reduce the impact of vote pullers, several of them digital influencers and with anti-system speech.
Understand how the two debated electoral system models work and the positive and negative points of the change:
Proportional elections, the current model
In the proportional model, the voter votes for a party and/or candidate. Even if you vote for one person, the vote is also counted for the party. The electoral quotient is calculated, a total of valid votes divided by the number of vacancies, which will define how much is needed to be elected.
When a candidate exceeds this number of votes, the party can use the surplus for other candidates who did not reach the quotient, filling as many seats as the party can with the total number of votes it received, whether for itself or for candidates.
This can benefit parties with vote-pulling names: if the electoral quotient is calculated at 100,000 votes to be elected and a candidate receives 1 million, the rest of their votes will be used to elect another nine representatives.
The electoral quotient tends to facilitate the presence of smaller acronyms in the Legislature, but it is not very educational. Voters, in general, do not understand the reason why a deputy was elected and forget their vote. As a result, decision-making power is more focused on the candidate’s individual performance.
Mixed district, the proposed model
This model mixes some elements of the proportional system, seen above, and the district system, the one used in , for example, which elects representatives by the majority of votes.
In the mixed district system, half of the legislative seats for a state or city are divided into several electoral districts. The voter then votes for the candidate in their district, and this vote also counts for the party, which has a pre-ordered list of candidates.
For example, of the 70 seats in the Chamber for São Paulo, 35 would be filled by the most voted in the districts, and the other 35, by the proportional system. The model requires greater trust in the associations, since half of the vacancies will be defined by the parties, without voter decision.
On the one hand, the voter gets closer to the representative, who received the most votes in that delimitation. The parties are also strengthened, as they can put together a list of who will go to the Legislature, regardless of the votes for candidates.
On the other hand, it tends to reduce the space for smaller parties and candidates representing minorities, since, to be elected in the district, more votes are needed than if there were an electoral quotient, as in the proportional system. If fewer candidates from smaller acronyms are elected, fewer representatives these parties can place through the proportional system.
Elections and organized crime
The mixed district system is discussed as a way to stop organized crime from entering Brazilian politics. PL 9,212/2017, authored by the former senator (-SP), was approved in the Chamber but is shelved in the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Committee). He was resurrected after the mega-operation in Rio.
At the microphones, supporters of changing the voting model also cite the greater harmony between voters and congressmen. On the other hand, behind the scenes, deputies and senators heard by the Sheet deny the impact of this system against the penetration of criminal factions into politics — some even claim that the change would facilitate entry.
Juliana Sakai, executive director of the NGO Transparência Brasil, points out that changing the electoral system does not have the capacity to prevent the advance of organized crime in politics and cites cases of mayors elected in 2024 linked to criminal factions. For her, the best solution would be to strengthen the parties’ accountability in elections.
Centrão in its own cause
The proposal, articulated by centrist and right-wing parties that are currently the majority in Congress, is seen by some parliamentarians as a way for the center to expand the power of the parties and part of a project to grow the group, by further reducing small acronyms.
Another point highlighted by congressmen against the project is the geographical definition of electoral districts. The way they would be designed could benefit those who currently command the federal Legislature, which opens up space for a dispute similar to that seen in the USA. O and O sponsor the redesign of districts to expand forces in the Capitol and defeat the opponent.
Furthermore, the country’s history is one of resistance to changing the format of the electoral system — we have been using the same system since 1932, and several attempts to change have already been made. Congressmen have already discussed the mixed district model before, in addition to the pure district model, called “district”, where all seats are distributed between districts and those with the most votes are elected, without taking into account the weight of the associations.
Next steps
The president of the Chamber, (Republicanos-PB), defended the project and chose deputy Domingos Neto (-CE) as rapporteur. The project needs to be approved by the Chamber’s CCJ and then by the plenary. If the House makes changes, it returns to the Senate. If the two Houses agree on the text, it will be approved by the president ().
If approved, the new model would not be valid for cities (due to the principle of annuality), but rather from the municipal dispute in 2028 (for cities with more than 200 thousand inhabitants) and in general in 2030.
