Just a moment...
apnews.com

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.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    14 hours ago

    Nothing in the election machinery prevents a candidate from claiming fraud.

    But it’s much less plausible when you have more secure voting systems.

    Two great videos by Tom Scott. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

    Certainly, nothing about pen and paper ballots prevents disreputable agents from stuffing ballot boxes or just refusing to count opposition votes entirely.

    This is easily solved by never having any portion of the vote counting and transport happen alone. And representatives from all parties all invigilate so there’s no funny business.

    Not to brag, but there’s almost never any doubt in our elections, and rarely anyone claiming fraud.

    It’s not perfect, but sorry, Australian elections are better than any country using electronic voting.

    You simply cannot verify electronic voting in the same way you can physical writing, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying or doesn’t understand.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 hours ago

      But it’s much less plausible when you have more secure voting systems.

      No lay voter has any idea of what constituents “secure” in a material sense.

      All you have are people insisting “my system is safe, your system is not”. And this thread is a perfect illustration.

      Hand marked paper ballots are notoriously prone to failure. Nothing about them is materially more secure than a printed ballot. And yet…

      This is easily solved by never having any portion of the vote counting and transport happen alone.

      It isn’t easily solved, as the number of venues and volume of votes leave ample opportunities for shenanigans (or, at least, alleged shenanigans).

      The Ohio Recount in 2004 is a classic example.