Senator Flavio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) has reiterated the accusations of his father, President Jair Bolsonaro (PL), against the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and said the court’s refusal to accept the changes proposed by the armed forces “will generate distrust” in this year’s elections.
“TSE must ensure a safe and transparent process. [Se continuar como está], will generate mistrust. What would happen, I don’t know, if the Supreme Electoral Tribunal insisted on this insanity and wanted to keep everyone who voted in the elections a secret. Flávio, in an interview with SBT News, said that some of the suggestions from the armed forces have no reason not to respond to TSE, as they do not generate any cost.
Last week, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal released the technical team’s responses to the EAF’s proposals for the 2022 electoral process. In all, seven proposals were submitted to the Electoral Tribunal and all were rejected, either because they were already somewhat adopted or not feasible for implementation this year (See full below). The court also reiterated that there is no “dark place” to count the elections.
The senator questioned the court’s response when the interviewer, journalist Deborah Bergamasco, said the panel had confirmed no wrongdoing.
Not all is well. Because of [ministro Edson] Fashin starts attacking the armed forces as if he is an intruder, an intruder in this process, are they the ones who invited him? If they accept an invitation and show that they have problems, we will solve those problems, otherwise this will generate distrust of the outcome, whatever it may be.
Flávio Bolsonaro, in an interview with SBT News
Flavio Research Questions
More than once during the interview, Flavio said there was “no way to predict” what would happen if the outcome was different from what the Bolsonaro family expects.
“I cannot foresee what will happen, but it would be wise for the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to take measures to avoid any doubt about electronic voting machines. In Datapovo and in our internal polls, Bolsonaro’s victory in the first round was triggered,” he replied when asked what would happen if the president were to win Former Luis Inacio Lula da Silva (PT).
So far, all polls indicate that Lula is ahead of Bolsonaro. A Genial/Quaest poll launched last week with voters across the country showed the former president could win the election in the first round. However, due to the margin of error, the survey indicates that the dispute may move into the second round.
Opinion polls are frequently criticized and questioned about their methods by politicians, especially those who do not like the results presented. The institutes use quotas as a methodology, based on the latest data from the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) and TSE.
Every institute that conducts minimum credibility surveys needs to report how many people heard in their survey, on the days they heard, how they were contacted, what questions were asked of them and who paid for the survey. TSE even requires that this data be registered with the agency.
The invasion did not affect the elections
The president’s eldest son repeated statements from the state that had already been rejected to attack the electoral process, such as saying that a hacker had invaded the voting system and that the current count did not allow people to be counted by ballot boxes.
There was already a breach of TSE systems in 2018, including inappropriate access to the source code of one of the systems used in that year’s electronic voting machine. However, as Folha reported, investigations do not indicate that the criminal case jeopardized the election results, as the president has hinted.
According to TSE, the source code of the aforementioned software is accessible even to entities such as political parties, the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) and the Public Prosecution Office.
Furthermore, votes are counted electronically, first at each ballot box and then the results sent to a system via a private satellite network. Votes have been added in this electronic system.
Polling issues ballot papers from RDVs (digital voting records), and ballot papers are made available to political parties and organizations, such as the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) and the Electoral Public Prosecution. Each party can do its own vote count and compare it to the final result calculated by the TSE mechanism. The process is explained in a report by UOL.
See the questions of the armed forces and the response of the Supreme Electoral Court:
1. Integrity test trust level
The Armed Forces proposed to the TSE to adjust the number of surveys that participate in integrity testing, and implement two sampling plans for testing (one federal and one).
In response, the HEC rejected the proposal: “Given that there was already a significant increase in the sample of integrity-tested ballot boxes in the 2022 elections, operating today with a confidence level greater than 99%, the HEC did not find any technical reasons to support accepting the proposal or The current recommendation,” he said.
2. Draw ballot boxes for integrity testing
The Armed Forces suggested to the TSE that voting machines that participate in the integrity test be chosen by lot, “in a completely random manner”. Today, the inspection bodies choose the departments to be audited.
In response, TSE informed that the proposal was not feasible, but could not be adopted this year.
“However, it is understood that any change must be the subject of a dialogue with all inspection entities – I mention, for example, the Public Prosecution Office, the Federal Police and political parties – because it would involve suppressing a right recognized and in the interest of the effectiveness and transparency of the 2022 electoral process already consolidated,” he said. “.
3. The totality made by TRES
The armed forces proposed that the vote totals be conducted by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and TREs, as redundant. In response (see above), the Supreme Electoral Tribunal said that this had already been done, and that there was no “dark room” within the Electoral Tribunal for vote counting.
4. Inspection and audit
The armed forces point out that there is currently no difference between “inspection” and “audit,” which may preclude independent auditing. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal responded that there is indeed a possibility to review the electoral process.
5. The New Ballot Box Model in the Public Security Test (TPS)
The Armed Forces require the TSE to pass the UE2020 forms for the electronic ballot box, which was launched last year, through a public security exam before the elections.
TSE responded that the new model has the same security architecture as the 2015 model, which passed TPS last year, and that testing did not report any security vulnerabilities.
“Given that there has been no fruitful attack on the 2015 model, the same drills or plans are not technically apt to succeed on the 2020 model,” he said.
6. Regulatory processes for the verification hypothesis of irregularities in the integrity test
The armed forces recommend early prediction and disclosure of election results “in the event that any irregularity in vote counting is identified in the sample used in the integrity test.”
The Supreme Electoral Tribunal said in response that there are already electoral rules to be adopted in this scenario, but stressed that there have been no fraud or recorded irregularities in integrity tests since its inception in 2002.
“The few times that, at the end of the procedure, the differences between the results have been checked, they have been caused by human errors in typing the sounds, which can be checked and proven beyond any doubt by the footage captured and recorded in the transcripts of the audits. Thus, nothing about the ballot box or the electronic process itself.
7. Duplication of abstention
The armed forces demanded the preparation of a report on abstention and death data among registered voters in order to increase the “space available to inspect the electoral process” and to avoid double votes.
The Turkish Deliberative Court (TSE) rejected the request and said that supervisory bodies, such as MPs and parties, can question whether they have noticed evidence of fraud.