Presentation at the Third Annual Meeting of the Economics and Politics Research Group – EPRG 2015

1. 3rd Annual Meeting of the3rd Annual Meeting of the
Economics and Politics
Research Group EPRG 2015Research Group – EPRG 2015
U B FACE 05/12/2015UnB, FACE, 05/12/2015
1

2. Is The Question “For Whom Did
You Vote?” Relevant?
C. Alexandre A. Rocha
Legislative Advisor
Senate of Brazil
2

3. Central question
 What is the harnessing rate of the Brazilian
t ?votes?
– Is it worth remembering for whom we voted?
 71% of the voters forget for whom they voted for the House 71% of the voters forget for whom they voted for the House
of Representatives after four years.
3

4. 2010 election for the House of2010 election for the House of
Representatives
 135.5 million voters.
 18% of abstention.
 111 million votes casted:
– nominal votes: 89.4 million;
– votes for party/league : 9 million;
lid t 98 4 illi– valid votes: 98.4 million;
blank votes: 7 5 million;– blank votes: 7.5 million;
– null votes: 5.1 million.
4

5. Places, parties, leagues and
candidates by state
STATE
QUANTITY
PLACES PARTIES LEAGUES CANDIDATES
AC 8 - 2 37
AL 9 1 4 64
candidates by state
AM 8 4 3 51
AP 8 2 4 74
BA 39 5 3 243
CE 22 4 5 114
DF 8 5 4 94
ES 10 1 4 72ES 10 1 4 72
GO 17 - 5 119
MA 18 3 4 151
MG 53 6 6 524
MS 8 1 3 67
MT 8 2 4 68
PA 17 3 3 118
PB 12 4 3 77
PE 25 5 4 176
PI 10 6 3 87
PR 30 8 4 265
RJ 46 10 5 751
RN 8 3 5 60
RO 8 1 4 71
RR 8 2 3 62
RS 31 8 5 271
SC 16 6 3 147
5
SC 16 6 3 147
SE 8 4 4 54
SP 70 11 5 1.030
TO 8 - 2 40
TOTAL 513 105 104 4.887

6. Too many or too few candidates?
 9.53 candidates/place.
 Law 9,504/1997:
– more than 20 places disputed:
did t / t 1 5 tit f l candidates/party = 1.5 x quantity of places;
 candidates/league = 2 x quantity of places;
– up to 20 places disputed:p p p
 candidates/party = 2 x quantity of places;
 candidates/league = 3 x quantity of places.
ll d i 16 248 did t– allowed maximum: 16.248 candidates;
– allowed maximum without leagues: 21.509.6

7. What is the electoral quotient?
 Division of the quantity of valid votes (nominal
d t /l ) b th tit f land party/league) by the quantity of places
disputed, rounded to the nearest integer.
I thi th ti t i l l t d f h In this case, the quotient is calculated for each
state.
 The votes for each candidate or party/league The votes for each candidate or party/league
can be expressed as fraction of the quotient;
the overall summing is equal to 513the overall summing is equal to 513.
7

8. What is the electoral quotient?
 Summing of the fractions of the 4.887
did t 467 78candidates = 467.78.
 Summing of the fractions of the 209
ti /l 45 22parties/leagues = 45.22.
 However, only the parties or leagues with
votes equal or higher than the quotient electvotes equal or higher than the quotient elect
representatives.
 The electoral quotient represents a barrier The electoral quotient represents a barrier
clause.
8

9. Again too many or too fewAgain, too many or too few
candidates?
9

10. Again too many or too fewAgain, too many or too few
candidates?
 495 elected among the 710 most voted.
 18 elected among the 4.177 least voted.
 Competitive candidates are a minor subset of
the universe of candidates.
 Rules favor established politicians.
 In 2010, 79.3% of the deputies ran for
reelection and 70.8% succeed.
 Renewal rate went from 61.8%, in 1990, to
44.2%, in 2010.10

11. Minimum representation in intraMinimum representation in intra
league disputes
 1 league with 10 candidates and 100.001
tvotes.
 1 place according to the d’Hondt Method.
 9 candidates with 10.000 votes.
 1 candidate with 10.001 votes.
 Place occupied by the last one, even though it
received only 10% of the votes.
 Specially relevant when league is ideologically
inconsistent.11

12. Minimum representation inMinimum representation in
disputes between leagues
 10 leagues with 100.010 votes for 10 places.
 Quotient = 10.001.
 9 leagues with 10.000 votes.
 1 league with 10.010 votes.
 Again, place occupied by the last one, even
though it received only 10% of the votes.
 Minimum representation increases when there
are fewer leagues than places disputed.
12

13. Minimum representation inMinimum representation in
disputes between leagues
10.020
10.010
10.000
Votes
9.990
13
A B C D E F G H I J
Leagues
Votes Quotient

14. Minimum representation
QUANTITY
STATE
QUANTITY
PLACES
VALID
VOTES
ELECTORAL
QUOTIENT
LEAGUES
DOMINANT
LEAGUE
AC 8 346.126 43.266 2 302.861
AL 9 1.415.349 157.261 5 786.309
AM 8 1.530.188 191.274 7 382.553
AP 8 343.609 42.951 6 128.858
BA 39 6.684.011 171.385 8 5.484.324
CE 22 4.245.463 192.976 9 2.701.666
DF 8 1.406.083 175.760 9 175.767
ES 10 1.886.271 188.627 5 1.131.767
GO 17 2 988 243 175 779 5 2 285 131GO 17 2.988.243 175.779 5 2.285.131
MA 18 3.043.352 169.075 7 2.028.907
MG 53 10.413.335 196.478 12 8.252.088
MS 8 1.281.235 160.154 4 800.775
MT 8 1.506.816 188.352 6 565.061
PA 17 3.422.655 201.333 6 2.415.997
PB 12 1.952.737 162.728 7 976.375
PE 25 4.450.200 178.008 9 3.026.144
PI 10 1.668.005 166.801 9 333.609
PR 30 5.717.621 190.587 12 3.621.171
RJ 46 8.009.950 174.129 15 5.572.153
RN 8 1.653.375 206.672 8 206.679
RO 8 765.958 95.745 5 382.983
RR 8 222.696 27.837 5 111.352
RS 31 6.165.335 198.882 13 3.778.766
SC 16 3.471.076 216.942 9 1.735.546
SE 8 1 028 489 128 561 8 128 568
14
SE 8 1.028.489 128.561 8 128.568
SP 70 22.043.634 314.909 16 17.320.013
TO 8 728.049 91.006 2 637.044
TOTAL 513 98.389.861 4.407.478 209 65.272.467

15. Results
 Moderation in placing candidates.
 Few competitive candidates.
 Is the law too permissive?
 90.9% of valid votes harnessed.
– Nominal votes of elected and non elected from parties
ith l t d d t f ti ith l t dwith elected and votes for parties with elected.
 66% of voters represented.
V t h ld t ll ll th i t Voters should actually recall their votes.
15

16. Australia
 24 parties; 7 parties represented.
 849 candidates; 150 places.
 59.3% of valid votes harnessed.
 52.2% of voters represented.
 Fewer candidates/place and fewer parties
represented.
 Lower incidence of abstention as well as null
and blanks votes, but fewer votes harnessed.
16

17. Conclusion
 Quantitatively, Brazilian political system is
hi hl t tihighly representative.
 Political system is a dynamic game, in which
th ti i t f d f d b ththe participants frame and are framed by the
rules.
 Are there stringent limits on the period as well the Are there stringent limits on the period as well the
space for political campaign?
 There is a trade off concerning intra andg
between parties disputes if leagues end.
17

18. Info & Contact
Senate of Brazil Legislative Advisory Board site:
 http://www12.senado.gov.br/publicacoes/estudos-
legislativos/homeestudoslegislativos
Is The Question “For Whom Did You Vote?”Is The Question For Whom Did You Vote?
Relevant? [short version; in Portuguese]:
 http://www.brasil-economia-
governo.org.br/2015/03/09/a-pergunta-em-quem-
voce-votou-e-cabivel/
E mail:
18
E-mail:
 rocha.caa@gmail.com