Lula wins election after final votes tallied
183 points by laurenth 3 hours ago | 149 comments

bguberfain 2 hours ago
This was the first time I saw a major mainstream media outlet prominently feature a statistical predictive model live during the vote count (and it was spot on): https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/eleicoes/em-tempo-real-p...
reply
zorked 2 hours ago
Indeed, Rodrigo Mahlmeister's model was absolutey impressive. It even predicted the inflection points incredibly well.
reply
nemomarx 2 hours ago
This is probably a good support case for run-off elections being beneficial.
reply
wraptile 2 hours ago
Ranked voting and runoff systems seem to have nothing but positives yet adoption is still lacking for some reason.
reply
Tiktaalik 2 hours ago
No electoral method is perfect and there are problems with Instant runoff ranked ballots. Look up "Favourite Betrayal" as a problem where ranking your most favourite incorrectly can accidentally result in your least favourite winning.

Of course just because there are technically flaws, doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the status quo.

Instant Runoff Ranked ballots are particularly well suited for electing a single position like a Mayor or President. Given that it's still a majoritarian system like First Pass the Post, it's a much more questionable system to use for other things like electing a parliament.

reply
cowlevel 60 minutes ago
I think IRV at least has fairly unpredictable failure cases, which means they can't be exploited.

I remember seeing a 2D chart representing voter preferences on the X and Y axis, coloured by who wins under those preferences (and some assumptions). Some systems showed clear biases towards certain outcomes. IRV had a pretty symmetric shape but with a random mess of different colours in the middle.

reply
xvedejas 2 hours ago
Depends on which ranked system. IRV has a lot of issues that other systems (like STAR, my personal preference in voting system, or Condorcet methods for instance) address much better. Non-monotonicity in particular seems like a bad property of a voting system, so I'm confused that IRV is so popular recently.
reply
lotsofpulp 2 hours ago
First past the post is beneficial for establishment parties.
reply
perilunar 7 minutes ago
Indeed. It tends to reinforce a two-party system. Anyone who votes third-party gets accused of 'wasting' their vote.

Preferential/ranked choice voting allows people to vote third-party while still expressing a preference for one of the majors.

reply
soneca 2 hours ago
I have a learning a bit more related to tech from this election. Centrally organized, cohesive, persistent online engagement wins elections.

It won for Bolsonaro whose campaign nailed it in 2018. It didn’t win in 2022 because he was completely bad in dealing with pandemics (mocking people dying and saying he had nothing to do with it being president).

Now, Lula’s campaign was absolutely dead during the whole time. Until it lost in the legislative by a mile and in the President run had a partial loss in the first round. Then the campaign lit up after the partial upset.

Janones, an energetic young guy elected to legislative with good online presence led the campaign. He achieved creating a WhatsApp group with 11 million people called “Lula’s army”. He would give the directions and the people would obey almost blindly.

The interwebs (basically WhatsApp + Instagram) got flooded with this top to bottom Lula’s campaign.

The first round results made Bolsonaro very favorite. Lula victory was a huge upset. I put the merit in this incessant social media campaign.

The thing is: “centrally planned cohesive campaign” looks a lot like a cult. The point of the campaign is not critical thought or argumentation, it is incessant messaging. Think fandoms.

Bolsonaro voters pejorative nickname from past campaigns was they were all “cattle”. Because that is how they behaved online. Ironically, what worked for Lula voters this year was they behaving like “cattle”. Just reposting and following this central orders on what to post, what to say, what to dress.

The thing is, it works. Cult-like fandoms work in elections. The right won a few elections like this in the world. In Brazil, the left just learned how to do it was well.

The more mindless posters a politician has following their campaign HQ orders, the more votes they have.

reply
brazukadev 2 hours ago
Absolutely. Janones won this election. Let's see if he will be part of the government or will be sidelined again.
reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
> It didn’t win in 2022 because he was completely bad in dealing with pandemics

And also because the entire state apparatus was engaged in unconstitutional censorship of his "centrally organized, cohesive, persistent online engagement" machine, which is what wins elections, as you noted.

And now that Janones set up his own "Lula's Army", Brazilian institutions did not manifest even a fraction of the energy they had shown while persecuting Bolsonaro.

Lula was allowed to do everything Bolsonaro was persecuted for in 2022. He even lowered taxes on fuels, and got away with it. The tax cut ends tomorrow.

reply
leandrod 10 minutes ago
An opaque, illegal system. Brazilian law states votes must be counted publicly.
reply
fn-mote 2 hours ago
As optimistic as I want to be, this is the fourth term for a president?? That cannot be good for democracy.

It can be better than the alternatives and still not good.

reply
digitalPhonix 23 minutes ago
Why? If they’re democratically voted, what’s wrong with it?

Australia has no term limits and has famously had the longest serving prime minister (12 years) followed by extremely short terms. All seemed to represent the general will of the population.

reply
cowlevel 58 minutes ago
It's very situationally dependent. Term limits stop bad politicians doing too much damage, they also stop good politicians getting too much momentum on their side.
reply
bombcar 49 minutes ago
Term limits result in dynasties "behind the scenes" running things.

Long-term politicians result in "behind the scenes" doing the real work of running things.

Wait a minute ...

reply
surgical_fire 2 hours ago
Not in a row.

Lula served two terms from 2002-2010, and came back in 2022 (now to serve until 2030, if he lives until then).

reply
motionlessveloc 54 minutes ago
Plus he's 80 today and will be 84 by the time his term ends. Gerontocracy for the win.
reply
mixologic 60 minutes ago
His first two terms were 2003-2011
reply
subdude 3 hours ago
Heartening after all the interference the US and its oligarchs threw at this election.
reply
abdelhousni 3 hours ago
Fascism loses, maybe there is hope for the rest of the world.
reply
medellin 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
TheWrongGuy 2 hours ago
Who is we? Bolsonaro supporters?
reply
johntitor23 2 hours ago
Can you define fascism?
reply
declan_roberts 2 hours ago
Anything not left wing is fascism. What I don't like is fascism. Not being a heckin decent human being is fascism. Loving the government too much is fascism but so is hating it too much.
reply
platevoltage 2 hours ago
reply
declan_roberts 33 minutes ago
So the anti-fascist USSR and the Nazis overlapped by about 80-90%.
reply
runarberg 5 minutes ago
Fails criteria 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. So that is 7 out of 14 = 50%.

USSR was famously anti-religion (criteria 8) and pro labor (criteria 9 and 10) so thinking USSR shared 80-90% with Nazis is kind of laughable.

reply
hellgas00 2 hours ago
"Lula's re-election will strengthen Brazil's ties with Russia, Brazilian Workers Party congressman Reimont Otoni told TASS"

The world is more complex than "fascist" vs "communist"

reply
matheusmoreira 31 minutes ago
Bolsonaro was also friendly towards Russia. Any president will be. Brazil depends on their fertilizers.
reply
dietr1ch 49 minutes ago
I get that BRICS is world-domination wise scary to the US, but I don't really think the rest of the world fears that sans the US's warmongering.
reply
hellgas00 40 minutes ago
Tbh don’t really care which side is right (some of Lula's politics I like and other not). I’m just pointing out the mental gymnastics HN goes through to paint one group as “fascist,” while completely ignoring the grey areas that don’t fit their cleancut worldview.
reply
cowlevel 57 minutes ago
I don't know enough about their available options to know how bad this is.
reply
free_bip 2 hours ago
Are you taking this single congressman's word as fact?
reply
hellgas00 59 minutes ago
https://www.barrons.com/news/lula-calls-to-strengthen-strate...

Literally Lula said as much

"We are interested in discussing the defence area, the space area, the scientific and technological area, the education area, and especially, the energy issue area," Lula said.

reply
thimabi 2 hours ago
Once again, a clear anti-Bolsonaro vote from the majority of the electorate. Lula won because he got last-minute support from the moderates and even some right-wingers. It certainly does not feel like a victory of the left.

Now he will face a much bigger opposition in Congress and therefore will have to find a middle ground.

I expect his policies to move even further to the right. This might pave the way for his vice-president Alckmin, a historical right-winger, to run in the 2030 elections — likely against São Paulo’s governor Tarcísio de Freitas, also a right-winger and considered more moderate than the Bolsonaros despite being associated with them.

(reposting my own comment from a related thread)

reply
nemomarx 2 hours ago
The margin is a little close, so is the Senate expected to be deadlocked? Or is there a coalition that can form between moderates and the left?
reply
thimabi 2 hours ago
I wouldn’t say deadlocked but the coalition between moderates and the left isn’t a given. There are many centrist parties who will likely alternate between supporting and opposing the government depending on the issue.
reply
ufo 2 hours ago
Senate is very right wing.
reply
runarberg 2 hours ago
I would call this a defensive victory. The left’s best chance was a 0-0 draw, so they put everyone in defense and managed to prevent the right from scoring a victory goal.
reply
nielsbot 2 hours ago
moving to the right would be a trap. (cf. Dem party vs Trump) The left must instead build an anti-right wing narrative. People vote on material benefits so delivering more of those should be top priority—I think Trumps slump in the US proves that.
reply
hinow 2 hours ago
Parabéns Lula! Uffaaaaaa
reply
jonifico 2 hours ago
[dead]
reply
supjeff 2 hours ago
The one good thing about the current system is that shitheads like musk can spend half-a-billion to buy elections, but the people still have the final say.
reply
tialaramex 17 minutes ago
Interestingly the current "lets stop corporations from spending money on elections" that's popular in several states - wouldn't directly touch Musk because he can just spend the money directly.

I don't think "Oooh. Scary muslims!" works any less well if it's required to say "Elon Musk" rather than "American Apple Pie Goodness PAC" or whatever.

It might make a difference for smaller donors, especially if they're more sensitive about their personal PR.

reply
Daz912 2 hours ago
[dead]
reply
762236 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
colordrops 2 hours ago
That's assuming no gerrymandering and funny business at the polls.
reply
andersonpico 2 hours ago
gerrymandering is not possible with Brasil electoral system
reply
dietr1ch 58 minutes ago
Right, but he's right to try to account for legal, as in currently allowed, cheating or misrepresentation of the people in a democracy.
reply
xoa 2 hours ago
>gerrymandering

I don't know the specifics of Brazil's system, but at least in the US gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Presidency or Senate, only the House. It's also not without risk. Gerrymandering is bad, but it doesn't change the totals of votes; it attempts to reapportion "excess" votes yielding a large win margin in one area to give winning, but necessarily smaller, margins in more areas. Amongst other challenges though that smaller margin means if there is a wave then a gerrymander can turn into a "dummymander" where previously safe districts get flipped.

>funny business

This is actually pretty dang hard in anything but a total sham, and even then is at least obvious it happened. Some timy fiddling at the margins may be possible to sneak through, and yeah some elections that might make the difference. But that can't counter any serious victory. The more common technique seems to be trying to suppress the vote. But as well as also not being trivial it also too risks backfiring by motivating people much harder. There is a lot of human psychology around "loss", people often absolutely hate things being taken from them even if they were complacent about having them.

reply
brunoborges 2 hours ago
Brazilian here. President wins by popular vote. Period.

Must win by 50% plus 1 of all valid votes on Round 1. If not, 1st and 2nd most voted go for Round 2 a few weeks later. Then, 50%+1 again of all valid votes.

reply
Dwedit 2 hours ago
While gerrymandering technically "only" involves the house, it can demotivate people who would otherwise turn out.
reply
saturn8601 49 minutes ago
Gerrymandering is the most benign of the tricks, and both sides play that trick. What's more concerning is we don't really have a true paper record of the votes. So many of these swing states have machines that produce digital only voting records. So how do we even know that the vote is accurate? Even if there was a paper record, most states don't even bother re-checking unless it's very close. After 2016, a lot of activism across the country has forced states to switch to a paper + digital record, which allows quick tallies, but then also paper backup and opens the door to two way verification. Unfortunately, this is not enough. There needs to be validation done after the election to confirm. But again, the worst part is that the states that really matter have been the ones least incentivized to actually switch over. So who knows? While its conspiracy thinking that Trump didn't actually win in 2024, do we really know for sure?

Everything else you mentioned also matters. I can't tell you the amount of times that the state of Georgia, suddenly out of the blue, invalidated a lot of registered voters. And if people don't check, like my friend in a minority town outside of Atlanta, they won't realize until election day. Red states are more likely to play this trick. Your conclusion is something I disagree with, though. Voters have lost so much over the last decade, and they don't fight back until it really starts to affect them personally. I think the surge that we might see this election is only due to economics. If the economics were good, it's not out of the question that Trump would be doing fairly decent this election cycle. This is why Iran is playing things very well to try to enact maximum economic pain in the days before the election. But it's all about economics, and that shows you that people truly don't really care.

reply
p-e-w 2 hours ago
Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results. Most electoral systems already give unequal weight to different votes based on district sizes etc., so gerrymandering is only a change of degree and intention, not of how democracy fundamentally works.
reply
afavour 2 hours ago
> Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results.

Well it does change which voters decide the results. A lot of electoral systems seek to constantly redress imbalance by having impartial bodies redraw district lines as populations shift. It is a shame the US does not. Gerrymandering is fundamentally undemocratic.

reply
cowlevel 2 hours ago
I'm not sure you could find, or make, an impartial body in the US.
reply
MattDamonSpace 2 hours ago
So can we stop panicking about money in elections or
reply
mahmoudhossam 2 hours ago
No.
reply
georgemcbay 2 hours ago
No, this much money in politics is still very dangerous.

A major reason it isn't working for now is because Donald Trump is, in addition to being a corrupt autocrat, incredibly incompetent. We shouldn't have to rely on that next time.

reply
dylan604 44 minutes ago
Trump's time is ending, but Musk's is not. That's pretty scary
reply
Telaneo 2 hours ago
Absolutely the fuck not.
reply
johnnyanmac 2 hours ago
Nope. Money still buys votes. It's just that Musk is so opaquely unpopular outside of the US that it negates his riches. Which really says something.
reply
Ygg2 2 hours ago
Not really. A biased coin doesn't need to be biased 99% (to 1%) for it to matter.
reply
sergiotapia 2 hours ago
reply
cowlevel 2 hours ago
Yes, please say more, I have no idea what you're saying.
reply
platevoltage 2 hours ago
Wait, what did he do besides be happy that a fascist isn't in charge of the future of the Amazon?
reply
sergiotapia 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
digitaltrees 2 hours ago
OK. So name some of the infinite ways.
reply
sergiotapia 2 hours ago
HN isn't the place for this kind of stuff. But, clear as day Alex Soros loves Lula and his positions and mission. Go from there.
reply
cowlevel 2 hours ago
What would be the next step in understanding?
reply
dvdyzag 2 hours ago
wasn't musk heavily quoted in physics and tech books until his politics became center stage?
reply
ryan_n 2 hours ago
Serious question: why would he be "heavily" quoted in physics books? I didn't think he was a physicist, is he?
reply
epihelix 2 hours ago
It's not limited to textbooks or academic publications, or based on any context whatsoever, but an ngram search actually suggests there's a much larger musk stain on recent published literature than I'd ever thought possible:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Elon+Musk%2CAl...

Make of that what you will.

reply
cowlevel 2 hours ago
I don't understand how to filter this to physics books
reply
so-gala-massey 2 hours ago
I guess some people still like to troll? Or are so dumb they’ve obviously never even cracked a physic text? I’m hoping it’s just old fashioned trolling.
reply
jeffbee 2 hours ago
We need to get to the bottom of why people believe stuff like that, and fix it.
reply
beloch 2 hours ago
It's money.

If you have a lot of money and you've managed to stay out of prison, people are generally ready to believe good things about you and want to be in your good graces. If you pay people to continually say good things about you and manage your media appearances for you, there will generally be a lot of impact to that. You're just telling people what they're primed to believe. A lot of people will fluff up your image for free just because they're hoping for patronage.

Musk has a BA in physics that was awarded a couple years after he says he says he completed his studies. Unlike CPSC, leaving a physics program early robs you of some pretty crucial stuff. You generally don't see a lot of rockstar physicists leaving university early to join startups. Despite Musk posing as a rocket scientist, engineering guru, etc., there's no evidence he's one of the scientific or engineering minds behind Tesla or SpaceX's work. He's just a money guy.

The general rule for money guys is that the closer you are to the money, the more of it you can get. This is why CEO's are paid outrageous sums. Musk is the closest guy to the money at his companies, and his one true gift seems to be "getting close" to politicians in order to get the public's money, which Tesla and SpaceX have received gob-smacking amounts of.

If you want a laugh, go look up the episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History addendum where he brought Musk on. Carlin typically interviews authors of history books, so why Musk? Why indeed! During this episode, it comes out that Musk used to have models of WWII planes but clearly knows absolutely nothing about history. Despite this, he makes every effort to sound like he does. This is the sort of exposure $$$ gets you but, sometimes, you miss the mark.

reply
hackyhacky 2 hours ago
You're fighting a losing war against human laziness and gullibility.
reply
lazide 2 hours ago
Reality distortion field. Same reason Jobs is held up as an amazing visionary.
reply
p-e-w 2 hours ago
That assumption has certainly been vindicated, considering what happened to Apple after he was gone.
reply
datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago
A 5 trillion dollar company?
reply
cowlevel 2 hours ago
That produces the blandest corporate safe slop.
reply
ceejayoz 2 hours ago
You’re making the claim. Back it up.
reply
coeneedell 2 hours ago
Not really. He had a really good PR person that made people think this, but most technologists are focused on, y’know, actual technology
reply
Thrymr 2 hours ago
no
reply
medellin 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
matheusmoreira 3 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
johntitor23 2 hours ago
Please don't share half the context.

Many cities had their mayor cancelling free public transportation and stopping people from going voting. Extending the time is a reaction, not a first action. Furthermore, the ask didn't come just from Lula's party, it came from both candidates [1].

2022 Brazil had the Federal Police Director actively interfering with transportation as well.

[1] - https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/eleicoes/o-que-diz-o-codigo-ele...

reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
lukan 3 hours ago
"They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him"

Both candidates supported that decision.

reply
bakies 3 hours ago
Both sides asked to extend the hours. The court took the action. I don't really know brazillian politics and what happened in the past but thought I'd point that out.
reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
Abstainees were thought to be the biggest source of new votes for Lula in the 2nd round of elections. I think such a move benefited Lula far more than it did Flávio.

It's also inconsistent with the court's own precedent. Extending voting hours was deemed illegal back in 2022. "Everybody had the chance to vote", said Alexandre de Moraes.

After Lula lost in the 1st round, suddenly it became legal again. The irony is not lost on me. That's the pattern with the leftist judges in the courts. The supreme court judge who decided it used to be Lula's own lawyer.

reply
armchairhacker 2 hours ago
What are the other crimes? Extending time would rarely be bad, and it seems both candidates approved it.
reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
Back in 2022, Lula's party used to be against Bolsonaro's "digital militias". They engaged everybody they had in the superior and supreme courts in order to censor it all. It was disgusting.

This time around, some guy in Lula's party created "Lula's Army", a channel with millions of people in it. Suddenly, it was fine.

They used to cry about "fake news" and call for censorship at every opportunity, and they'd get it because they own the courts. Now they were the ones spreading "fake news" of all sorts. Did they get censored? Nah.

Censorship in Brazil is unconstitutional, by the way. Political censorship is doubly so. It doesn't matter, because they own the supreme court.

There are no laws in Brazil, there is only what the supreme court wants. Whatever they write on a piece of paper becomes law, and police obeys it. They are the true seat of power in this country.

reply
cowlevel 51 minutes ago
It sounds like they have tried a tactic, discovered that it does not work, and switched to a different tactic which works. Isn't that exactly what they should do?
reply
matheusmoreira 37 minutes ago
Absolutely. Do you have nothing to say about the obvious censorship, though? Consistency demands that they too be censored, since Bolsonaro was censored back in 2022. Censoring the right and letting the left run free is precisely what led to January 8th.
reply
gtirloni 2 hours ago
> submitted the news too and it got flagged

Please review the HN guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

reply
matheusmoreira 33 minutes ago
I was just linking it for completeness. My submission was flagged, but this one wasn't. Guidelines don't explain the difference.
reply
spolitry 2 hours ago
This is a very confusing comment. Most on this side don't know the insider informing the Brazilian elections, and we only know the public news

Can you explain?

You are right winger but don't like the Brazilian right wing aligning with the US right wing, but do like the politicians who are aligned with the US right wing?

reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
I'm kinda trying to move past left/right labels. I'll try to explain.

Bolsonaro generally supports privatizing Brazilian state companies and selling them off to foreigners. I don't want that. Especially not to the US and Israel.

Lula on the other hand is better aligned with China, which is also what I want.

Lula and myself are aligned on these two points. So this outcome is not entirely bad for me.

The problem I have with Lula is his party's obnoxious taxation, lack of a real plan for reindustrialization, continuous defense of criminals, and most importantly, his total domination of the supreme court. I voted for the right specifically to see those judges impeached and imprisoned, because I absolutely oppose everything they did in 2022, far more than I ever opposed Lula himself. I'm of the opinion that presidents and elections barely matter anymore, because it's the supreme court that runs the country. It's the Venezuela governance model: president appoints god-like supreme court judges and rules monocratically through them.

The 1st round this month was such an upset not because of Bolsonaro but because of the senate. They are the ones who can impeach supreme court judges, and when Brazil unexpectedly elected a right wing majority in the senate, it struck true fear into the court. This was our chance to completely wipe out that court and forever change the history of this country, like Bukele did for El Salvador.

While in the end the necessary victory didn't materialize, Brazilian senate is still absolute majority right wing now, and they could still impeach those judges. I'm not going to hold out hope for that anymore, but if I see at least one judge bite the dust I'll still call it a major win.

reply
diego_moita 2 hours ago
Lula and Bolsonaro are two sides of the same coin: a stupid tribalism were each side feeds on the hatred for the other.

Both will lead the country to pork-barrel, corruption and government paralysis by debt. Both are "unfortunate".

There are 2 solutions for all Brazilian problems: Guarulhos and Galeão. The rest is just circus.

reply
matheusmoreira 43 minutes ago
Yeah, I agree completely. I didn't vote for any of these candidates, I voted to impeach the supreme court.

There is exactly one politician that once upon a time represented me: Dr. Enéas Carneiro. Ironically, his ideas were closest to the Chinese Communist Party. He's dead now.

The left wing has PCO, a real left wing party, and I agree with them on a daily basis. They're shunned by everyone, and were even persecuted by the supreme court along with the right wing.

I'm increasingly resigned to the idea that immigration is the only option by now.

reply
epolanski 3 hours ago
Why unfortunate?
reply
thatsnogood123 3 hours ago
Bolsonaro-aligned mayors deliberately blocked busses from running that would take people to the polls in Lula-supporting neighborhoods. Emergency legal decisions allowed voting times to extend as a response to this. By the margin of votes, it wouldn't have mattered.
reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
tomcam 3 hours ago
> Lula was allowed to do every "electoral crime" they barred Bolsonaro from doing in 2022. They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him, and also ruled illegal back in 2022.
reply
spolitry 2 hours ago
Letting cirixes vote in elections is bad?
reply
free_bip 2 hours ago
The amount of mental gymnastics people will do to support fascist dictator wannabes is truly insane. For your sake I hope you find reality.
reply
subw00f 2 hours ago
Closer to US interests? What a joke. Better luck next time, I guess.
reply
matheusmoreira 39 minutes ago
I don't get it. Are you agreeing with me?
reply
MrBuddyCasino 2 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
Telaneo 2 hours ago
Saying HN is leftist is an insult to anyone with actual leftist beliefs.
reply
subdude 2 hours ago
You guys always make moderate to center left politicians sound so much cooler than they really are.
reply
platevoltage 2 hours ago
Oh no, not the hammer and sickle! Cover your children's eyes!
reply
l-mdev 2 hours ago
[dead]
reply
762236 2 hours ago
What's sad is you're down voted for your political opinion, causing HN to classify your comments as low quality, which reduces the amount you can contribute. The Lula supporters and anti-Musk people are exhibiting authoritarian behaviors, and they are too blind to see it. I stick to X for rewarding conversations.
reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
I'm used to it by now.

Debating politics with the Chinese on X taught me a lot and allowed me to move past left/right labels. My personal politics turned out to be a mix between what people call left and right wing ideologies.

reply
lenkite 2 hours ago
It was extremely amusing. Brazilian election law generally sets 5 p.m. Brasília time as the deadline for closing polls. The judge who made the emergency ruling to pause counting and extend voting hours by 2 hours was Cristiano Zanin Martins - Lula's former personal attorney. The same guy who Lula nominated to the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil in June 2023.
reply
anderber 2 hours ago
Both candidates agreed to it. Please stop.
reply
canadiantim 2 hours ago
Yeah it’s alarming how much HN users are willing to support corruption so long as it’s their preferred candidate doing it. Really is all just tribalism to most posters in this thread so far
reply
cowlevel 50 minutes ago
How is letting more people vote corruption? I'd say it's corruption whenever anyone can't vote.
reply
matheusmoreira 39 minutes ago
Everyone had more than enough time to vote. The courts said that verbatim back in 2022. Why change opinion now?
reply
i_love_retros 2 hours ago
Hey Zuckerberg, Musk, Trump, Vance, Rubio:

BRASIL SAYS FUCK YOU!

reply
swingandamiss 2 hours ago
I truly hate what HN has become. It has all the expected comments about Musk, fascism, etc. This is exactly why I stopped going to reddit.
reply
aliasxneo 2 hours ago
Just a friendly gesture that there's still independents/non-partisan's here. We're a dying breed, but it seems to the the inevitable outcome when politics becomes a religion.
reply
i_love_retros 58 minutes ago
In current times only cowards and deadbeats are non partisan.
reply
aliasxneo 50 minutes ago
Non-partisan doesn't mean lack of engagement or action. Maybe that's why there's so much confusion here.
reply
torlok 2 hours ago
Buddy, ICE is chasing down and killing US citizens. Musk is openly supporting European neo-Nazis. The US tech sector is supporting the genocide of Palestinians, and interfering with foreign elections.
reply
cowlevel 54 minutes ago
The left: we need free healthcare and less market capture.

The right: we need to torture immigrants and more market capture.

The center: I can't decide between these two equally appealing, equally moral options.

reply
aliasxneo 2 hours ago
See, the problem is that each side has moved so far to the extreme that any middle of the road comment is perceived as supporting the other side. But thanks for the demonstration, I guess.
reply
cowlevel 53 minutes ago
A middle of the road comment would be "we need taxes, but not too high" or "children shouldn't be going hungry, but very sadly we can't afford to feed them from the city budget". What's actually being responded to above is the complete lack of a comment.
reply
torlok 56 minutes ago
Swing and a miss buddy. The point is that big tech is political by its own choice, and you have to be extremely ignorant to look past that.
reply
aliasxneo 47 minutes ago
No, you just blatantly assumed none of those things mattered to me. You do realize you can have morals and opinions but also be non-partisan, right? Of course big tech is political, I completely agree. But you never asked me that question. Which again, really just keeps driving my point home. It's rabid.
reply
roshannarma 2 hours ago
Yeah it's a really bad echo chamber, hard to find any system that is not built around group thinking
reply
newsy-combi 2 hours ago
True.
reply
i_love_retros 59 minutes ago
So you're not against fascism?
reply
georgemcbay 15 minutes ago
A shocking number of people aren't against fascism, as long as you don't use the actual word to describe what they support.

And when you correctly use the word to describe what they are supporting, you are inciting violence.

reply
brazukadev 3 hours ago
Really unexpected.

Polymarket was like 80% Bolsonaro Jr to 20% Lula 7pm, 7:15 it changed to 60% Lula. There were multiple reports in the news websites about it favoring Bolsonaro which itself probably made some people vote for him.

I'm quite happy with the result tho. Let's see how the far right opposition will take this loss. I'm already expecting the worse.

reply
mulderc 2 hours ago
Maybe these prediction markets are less useful than has been claimed.
reply
furyofantares 2 hours ago
20% happens about 1 in 5 times. I know that's snarky wording but 20% shots come though constantly in daily life.

I think as humans we are really bad at intuition about probabilities, and it being an election only makes it much worse. I don't think anyone is consciously conflating these with poll numbers but percentages of voters are the numbers we see a lot more than prediction markets, and 80% is idunno an 80% chance of getting between 50% and 54% of the vote or something.

reply
alpha_squared 2 hours ago
It's not a 'prediction market', it's a gambling market. It's far more accurate to say 80% of gamblers were convinced Bolsanaro would win than to say there's an 80% likelihood he would win. It's not measuring likelihood as it's untethered from things that impact the actual results. Obscuring it basic gambling with the word 'prediction' doesn't change the fact that's naked gambling at the end of the day.
reply
quirino 2 hours ago
The 80% is not the proportion of people who think he would win, that's not how these things work.

Every single factor was pointing towards Bolsonaro, Polymarket was just consistent with that.

He unexpectedly won the first round of the election. His lead was expected to grow since he'd likely get most of the votes of the other candidates. 17 out of 18 polls favored Bolsonaro. Market movements indicated a strong expectation of him winning. The Brazilian Real futures are already down 10% in the last couple hours.

reply
matheusmoreira 23 minutes ago
> The Brazilian Real futures are already down 10% in the last couple hours.

Brutal.

reply
smuhakg 2 hours ago
If he has an 80% chance to win that means Polymarket will be "wrong" 20% of the time. And 80% seems fair given he was leading in the polls by a razor thin but consistent margin.
reply
jeffbee 2 hours ago
Polymarket isn't binary so you are understating how wrong they were. Polymaket gives outcomes as percentage odds and less than 12 hours ago they had Bolsonaro by 5-to-1.
reply
cowlevel 56 minutes ago
They resolve as binary. Until they resolve it's a percentage chance of the eventual resolution.
reply
augusto-moura 2 hours ago
They were never useful for the results, just for market expectation, which is never the same as real chances of something happening
reply
axus 2 hours ago
Maybe it's useful for people spending money to present the odds they wish for?
reply
medellin 2 hours ago
They are good at some markets but they don’t understand latam and especially Brazilian politics in the least so whatever makes it into the US news drives the market although it is normally wrong
reply
bryanlarsen 2 hours ago
A 20% chance of Lula winning is still a real chance of winning. A standard rule of thumb would require 2 standard deviations aka 5% aka p<0.05 for relative certainty.
reply
estebank 2 hours ago
If you think this result with those odds is unexpected, you must have never played X-Com :)
reply
platevoltage 2 hours ago
We saw how they took it last time.
reply
medellin 2 hours ago
Not really. If you follow anyone who has been covering latam for a long time they had odds of this election at a coinflip.
reply
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago
If the new right wing senate manages to at least impeach some supreme court judges, I'll still call it a major win.

Surprising to see Bolsonaro lose at this point, but the real upset of this election was caused by the senate. The whole point of electing the right wing was to impeach the judges. So long as that happens, I will be satisfied.

The next four years were going to seriously suck for Flávio. Now the economic bomb is going to explode in Lula's hands. I was tempted to vote for Lula myself just to make that happen. It's the supreme court issue that stopped me.

Lula's barely fit for his position as president too. He might resign and let the vice-president deal with it. Also an acceptable outcome.

reply
cowlevel 55 minutes ago
What do you get out of posting on HN that you want to destroy your country?
reply
matheusmoreira 26 minutes ago
It's the only place where I feel safe enough to discuss Brazilian politics.

Impeachment of the supreme court is precisely what will save this country. They have been ruling monocratically since they launched the "fake news" inquisition in 2019. People can stomach a Lula win, even I have points where I intersect with the guy. The thing is not a single Brazilian voted for those judges.

Unfortunately, Flávio's loss will only embolden them now. Remains to be seen whether the senators will do what we elected them to do.

reply