IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v83y2024ics0176268024000508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Was Bolsonaro’s 2018 electoral victory an institutional accident?

Author

Listed:
  • Maciel, Marcelo Veloso

Abstract

Presidential Elections are critical moments for polyarchical systems, particularly in contexts of high social tension. In this regard, the 2018 presidential election in Brazil, which used a two-round system, is a significant case study. Intriguingly, the most divisive candidates went to the second round. Was this an institutional accident? Pairwise and positional voting procedures embody different generalizations of a majoritarian credo that underpins such elections. The paper mobilizes both perspectives and, using representative survey data, reconstructs the top four preferences of the Brazilian electorate a week before the election. The analysis reveals that the electoral winner, Jair Messias Bolsonaro – despite being a divisive candidate – was a Condorcet Winner and a Borda Winner. Conversely, the second-round loser, Fernando Haddad, was a Condorcet Loser. Thus, Bolsonaro’s victory in 2018 was not an institutional accident. The paper also explores possible alternative scenarios under different feasible sets of candidates through simulations, contributing to a deeper understanding of the role of decision procedures in critical junctures.

Suggested Citation

  • Maciel, Marcelo Veloso, 2024. "Was Bolsonaro’s 2018 electoral victory an institutional accident?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:83:y:2024:i:c:s0176268024000508
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268024000508
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102548?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaminski, Marek M & Lissowski, Grzegorz & Swistak, Piotr, 1998. "The "Revival of Communism" or the Effect of Institutions?: The 1993 Polish Parliamentary Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 429-449, December.
    2. Alexander Tabarrok & Lee Spector, 1999. "Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 261-288, April.
    3. McLEAN, IAIN, 2002. "William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetic(s)," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 535-558, July.
    4. Marek M. Kaminski, 2015. "Empirical examples of voting paradoxes," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 20, pages 367-387, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Kei Kawai & Yasutora Watanabe, 2013. "Inferring Strategic Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 624-662, April.
    6. Samuel S. -H. Wang & Jonathan Cervas & Bernard Grofman & Keena Lipsitz, 2021. "A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in U.S. democracy," Papers 2106.11901, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    7. Nalepa,Monika, 2022. "After Authoritarianism," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316513439, January.
    8. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2018. "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-35.
    9. Jens Großer & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2014. "Candidate Entry and Political Polarization: An Antimedian Voter Theorem," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 127-143, January.
    10. Ostrom, Elinor, 2009. "An Agenda for the Study of Institutions," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 89-110, December.
    11. Svolik, Milan, 2008. "Authoritarian Reversals and Democratic Consolidation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 153-168, May.
    12. Karine Van der Straeten & Jean-François Laslier & Nicolas Sauger & André Blais, 2010. "Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 435-472, September.
    13. Saari, Donald G., 1989. "A dictionary for voting paradoxes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 443-475, August.
    14. Grossman, Guy & Kronick, Dorothy & Levendusky, Matthew & Meredith, Marc, 2022. "The Majoritarian Threat to Liberal Democracy," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 36-45, March.
    15. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring rules, ballot truncation, and the truncation paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 79-97, July.
    16. Nalepa,Monika, 2022. "After Authoritarianism," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781009073714, January.
    17. Nicholas R. Miller, 2017. "Closeness matters: monotonicity failure in IRV elections with three candidates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 91-108, October.
    18. Igersheim, Herrade & Durand, François & Hamlin, Aaron & Laslier, Jean-François, 2022. "Comparing voting methods: 2016 US presidential election," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    19. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2014. "Empirical social choice: an introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 297-310, March.
    20. Tabarrok, Alexander, 2001. "President Perot or Fundamentals of Voting Theory Illustrated with the 1992 Election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 106(3-4), pages 275-297, March.
    21. Raphael Nishimura & James Wagner & Michael Elliott, 2016. "Alternative Indicators for the Risk of Non-response Bias: A Simulation Study," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 84(1), pages 43-62, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2018. "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-35.
    2. Durand, François & Macé, Antonin & Núñez, Matías, 2024. "Voter coordination in elections: A case for approval voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-34.
    3. Arnaud Dellis & Alexandre Gauthier-Belzile & Mandar Oak, 2017. "Policy Polarization and Strategic Candidacy in Elections under the Alternative-Vote Rule," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 173(4), pages 565-590, December.
    4. Arnaud Dellis & Mandar Oak, 2016. "Multiple votes, multiple candidacies and polarization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 1-38, January.
    5. Donald G. Saari, 2023. "Selecting a voting method: the case for the Borda count," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 357-366, September.
    6. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    7. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-62, October.
    8. Matthew Interis & Chang Xu & Daniel Petrolia & Kalyn Coatney, 2016. "Examining unconditional preference revelation in choice experiments: a voting game approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 125-142, March.
    9. Marek M. Kaminski, 2018. "Spoiler effects in proportional representation systems: evidence from eight Polish parliamentary elections, 1991–2015," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 441-460, September.
    10. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    11. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On Two Voting systems that combine approval and preferences: Fallback Voting and Preference Approval Voting," Working Papers hal-03614585, HAL.
    12. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    13. Mehdi Feizi & Rasoul Ramezanian & Saeed Malek Sadati, 2020. "Borda paradox in the 2017 Iranian presidential election: empirical evidence from opinion polls," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 101-113, June.
    14. Ayranci, Evren, 2010. "Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 3(3), pages 1-22, October.
    15. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    16. Boonstra Philip S. & Little Roderick J.A. & West Brady T. & Andridge Rebecca R. & Alvarado-Leiton Fernanda, 2021. "A Simulation Study of Diagnostics for Selection Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 37(3), pages 751-769, September.
    17. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    18. Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 1997. "A Borda measure for social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 249-272, October.
    19. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    20. Schmidt, Susanne K., 2002. "Die Folgen der europäischen Integration für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Wandel durch Verflechtung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:83:y:2024:i:c:s0176268024000508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505544 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.