In our democratic regime, several political parties exercise the right to offer their candidates the electoral contest. On the other hand, it is up to citizens to assess and choose which candidates would be most suitable to their interests and concerns. Through the wide variety of options, we came to the conclusion that we live in a political regime endowed with wide freedoms, where the citizen has access to all kinds of discourse and proposals.
However, when we remember how serious the problem of corruption among our representatives is, we end up facing a dilemma. After all, what would be the point of wasting time evaluating and choosing a candidate who, sooner or later later, he would be denounced (or not!) for participating in some corruption scheme or embezzlement public? It is through this questioning that many voters end up opting for the null vote.
Lately, there have been several rumors that a null vote would be able to invalidate an entire electoral process. In this case, if more than half of the voters voted null, a new electoral process should take place formed by other candidates. The premise of this hypothesis is based on article 224 of the Electoral Code, which says that "if the nullity reaches more than half of the the country's votes in the elections, (...) the Court will set a day for a new election within a period of 20 (twenty) to 40 (forty) days".
For many, this article turns the null vote into not only a weapon of protest, but also a way to change the configuration of the electoral scenario. However, according to a recent interpretation of the TSE, this nullity only invalidates the elections when the votes are nullified because of some fraud that determines its disregard. Therefore, if more than fifty percent of the citizens' votes opt for the null vote, the choice of those who voted for any candidate prevails.
Thus, when a citizen votes null, he ends up opening a loophole for a bad candidate to end up winning the election with a smaller number of votes needed. Thus, it ends up being preferable to pin your hopes on a candidate or subtitle that is partially satisfactory than to make life easier for a candidate with a questionable profile. In the end, opting for a null vote ends up becoming an act of passivity under the prevailing political scenario.
Still, there are those who persist in voting null for other ideological reasons. Anarchists, for example, opt for the null vote because they do not recognize the need for authorities and politicians capable of interfering in life in society. In this way, they express their repudiation of the State, laws and rulers, indicating that they are not interested in what they have to offer. Right or wrong, the attitude of anarchists also proves another facet of our democracy: no choice.
By Rainer Sousa
Graduated in History
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/politica/votar-nulo-funciona.htm
