← Back to context

Comment by _blk

7 hours ago

No, it means they get an extra 2h of voting with no legislation backing that nor a precedent to go after.

I'm not sure why letting more people vote is bad?

Unless you're relying on suppressing the capacity of certain parts of your population to vote to win an election, like my country's right wing government has done, because last minute enrollment voters tend to not vote for them.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/electo...

  • That’s making quite a mental leap. What’s wrong is changing the rules halfway during a voting day, specially in one of the largest countries in the world with uneven logistics.

    Polls were closed in some places, voting boxes sealed, and had to be reopened.

    While not necessarily bad, it can create fraud suspicions. Just arrange a longer voting time from the get go. Else it looks you are stalling and boosting turnout out for your side.

    PS it’s quite common in some countries to put people on buses and make them vote in exchange of money.

  • The problem is the bias of the court. When Bolsonaro asked for one in 2022, it was denied. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote". When Bolsonaro asked for one yesterday due to heavy rain in the south, they didn't grant it either. They granted it immediately when Lula asked it though, and the person who did so was Lula's former lawyer. It's clear that there is no fairness to be found in the Brazilian institutions tasked with running fair elections.

When "but they let more eligible voters vote, that's cheating!" is your argument against someone in a democracy, it's time to take a good look at yourself.

Have polling stations open for a week, run them 24 hours on election day. Have so many that there's never a queue, and no one complains that they have to go far. That's democracy. The price is negligible.