Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a vocal critic Donald Trump, was reelected Sunday in a result that provides relief to critics of widening U.S. influence in Latin America.

With 100% of the vote counted, Brazil’s electoral court announced that the soon to be 81-year-old Lula had a lead of nearly 4.4 million votes over opponent Flávio Bolsonaro, giving him 51.8% of the total vote. Bolsonaro quickly refused to concede defeat and asked for the election results to be annulled after an evening of chaos at some polling places that followed a last-minute decision to extend voting by two hours.

Bolsonaro is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, whom Lula defeated to take the presidency in 2022.

Lula’s triumph bucks a regional trend of victories for right-of-center presidential candidates allied with Trump. It also means Latin America’s largest economy, with a GDP of $2.6 trillion per year, will likely continue defying Trump’s demands, despite the pressure of increased tariffs.

  • Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Lost me on that. Pen and paper aren’t at all more secure than Brazilian voting machines.

    They are essentially low spec linux computers without ports, internet acess or easy way in. The only thing they do it store results and print them on paper.

    Even if one manages to crack open a machine and sneak something inside, there is security to prevent it to pass as genuine

    • gozz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The internal state of the machine is not observable and not auditable. Anything stored in a computer can be falsified and the voter cannot know that it recorded their vote correctly. Unless the printing you are referring to is that it prints a paper ballot for each voter that they can check and then drop in a ballot box, then there is a step in the process that scrutineers can’t have eyes on. Even if the software is open source and the scrutineers got to watch it being compiled and installed on the machines, there are so many unobservables. Computers are literally billions of times more complicated and harder to audit than pencil and paper.

      The only electronic voting system I would even begin to entertain trusting is one that basically just fills the ballot out for you to make sure it is legible, and that you can validate the paper ballot. Such a system could then also keep its own count, giving a much quicker unofficial count before the paper ballots are counted, but I don’t really think it’s worth it. It is still an extremely complex machine that it would be easy to hide some sort of surveillance/wireless connection in, and anyone who can inspect the running total counts can also use that to determine how each person that goes through the booth voted.

      There is value in the brutal simplicity of pencil and paper, folding your ballot, and putting it in a box. It’s a system anyone can understand and that the human eye can audit.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        There is value in the brutal simplicity of pencil and paper, folding your ballot, and putting it in a box. It’s a system anyone can understand and that the human eye can audit.

        Which can also be easily falsified

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          No it can’t, and that’s the point.

          You have cast ballots always under multiple eyes, and have invigilators from all parties that supervise the vote counting.

          To pull off falsification would require a massive conspiracy that would almost 100% be leaked.

          Two great videos on the topic:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

          In conclusion you’re incorrect in my opinion.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            No it can’t, and that’s the point.

            Wrong, Brazil is proof of that.

            To pull off falsification would require a massive conspiracy that would almost 100% be leaked.

            It doesn’t matter if it leaks or not or how big the conspiracy is, if it happens it immediately casts doubt on the validity of whole process. Besides, “accidentally” getting rid of one or two votes, or “finding” one extra vote, has a bigger chance of going undetected and, even if caught, can be excused as “oops, my bad!”

            Brazil’s electoral frauds rarely aimed for presidential votes, they were much more often for state deputies and city councilors, where the difference between the last one getting elected and the first one out is usually very small. In the 1994 elections, the state of Rio de Janeiro had to null the results for state deputy and federal deputy. Fraud was rampant. https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/ha-30-anos-fraude-eleitoral-no-rio-apressou-projeto-da-urna-eletronica,e9c86b3b8ba6575111c5fed66407caf9qn1fx78n.html

            Some notable examples of fraud happening with paper, as per that article:

            • using a pencil lead under the nail to mark something on blank votes;
            • having the urn start out with a bunch of votes before voting even begins;
            • corrupt poll workers filling some of the reserve voting papers before closing the booth.

            You said in another comment something about “deeper social issues”. Guess what Brazil has in spades?