Abstention rises with lenient rules - Valor International

The ease of justifying absence from voting and the nominal fine for not showing up at the polls effectively make voting in Brazil—which is mandatory—optional. This is the view of experts consulted by Valor, who point to a set of factors contributing to the high abstention rate observed in this year’s municipal elections.

According to data released by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), the percentage of non-voters in the second round of this election was 29.26%. This means that out of ten voters, three abstained. George Avelino, a political scientist and professor at business school FGV-SP, believes that the streamlining of absence justification in this electoral cycle contributed to these figures.

Currently, voters can use the electronic voter registration card, which is basically an app, to tell the electoral authorities why they did not vote. This option has been available since the 2020 elections, when the country faced the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded its highest abstention rate. Previously, voters who missed the election had 60 days to visit an electoral office to justify their absence.

“The ease of justifying the vote encourages abstention. The measures adopted by [Justice Luís Roberto] Barroso while president of the TSE during the pandemic effectively made voting non-mandatory. Previously, one would have to miss a day of work to justify their vote. It was a cost to them. Now, that’s no longer necessary,” Mr. Avelino said.

Even if a voter who abstained does not justify their absence, the penalty is minor: the fine is R$3.51 for each missed round. A more severe penalty is only imposed if a person misses three consecutive elections, fails to justify the absence, and does not settle the electoral debt. In this case, the individual cannot obtain a passport, receive salaries from public positions, enroll in or be appointed to public contests, or renew enrollment in public schools and universities.

Antonio Lavareda, president of IPESPE (Institute for Social, Political and Economic Research) and a professor at the Federal University of Pernambuco, said abstention due to the ease of not voting in Brazil—through simplified justification and low penalties—is closely linked to what he identifies as one of the two factors behind low voter turnout.

“When analyzing past election data, abstention is more prevalent among lower-income and less-educated segments. In other words, the poorest and least educated abstain more. This is what we call a structural factor, occurring in Brazil and worldwide,” he said.

Mr. Lavareda added, “Imagine the case of a woman with little interest in the election, of low income, who needs to vote while bringing her two children with her. The costs of voting for the low-income and less-educated population are higher. For her, economically, it’s cheaper to stay home.”

The second factor, according to the IPESPE president, is the situational one, namely, the voter’s lack of interest. Mr. Lavareda noted that this disinterest or even discouragement can stem from reasons ranging from the perception that the campaign’s quality is low to a lack of enthusiasm for the candidates.

“There are several studies indicating that campaign radicalization and aggression increase alienation [a combination of absenteeism, null, and blank votes]. But this can also happen simply because the candidates did not inspire anyone. Or even the absence of a candidate in the second round demobilizing the voter,” he said.

Mr. Lavareda’s assessment aligns with that of Rafael Cortez, a political scientist and partner at the consultancy Tendências. He added that voter discouragement can also occur due to rejection of the candidates or believing the election outcome is already determined.

“Given that here in Brazil the penalty is reasonably low, even though voting is mandatory, voters end up not voting in situations where they dislike or see no difference between the candidates. If they think the election is already won, they may also choose not to vote,” Mr. Cortez noted.

Following this logic, more tightly contested elections tend to have lower absenteeism rates. “In these cases, there is a feeling that the vote carries more weight,” Mr. Avelino noted.

These two phenomena were observed in the second rounds in Porto Alegre and Fortaleza. In the former, the elected candidate had a wide advantage over the opponent, and abstention was higher. Sebastião Melo was elected with 61.53% of the votes, and the non-voter rate was 34.83%—the highest among the capitals. Meanwhile, in the closely contested Fortaleza election between Evandro Leitão, who emerged victorious, and André Fernandes, the abstention rate was the lowest: 15.84%.

In an interview following the consolidation of the second-round results, Justice Cármen Lúcia, Brazil’s elections chief, said the Electoral Court would analyze the electoral data to understand the reasons for the high abstention rate.

This article was translated from Valor Econômico using an artificial intelligence tool under the supervision of the Valor International editorial team to ensure accuracy, clarity, and adherence to our editorial standards. Read our Editorial Principles.