Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-23**Lead**
When Brazilians went to the polls in October, the world watched something remarkable: a country of 156 million voters tallied its presidential election in under three hours. The swift, fully electronic count — a hallmark of Brazil’s voting system since 1996 — has now become a focal point in the United States, where election officials and lawmakers are weighing how to restore confidence in American democracy ahead of the November midterms. The contrast could not be starker: Brazil’s results are transmitted and totaled within minutes of polls closing, while many U.S. jurisdictions still rely on hand-marked paper ballots and days-long counting processes. That gap has ignited a fresh debate over whether the United States should adopt elements of Brazil’s model — or whether the risks of digital voting outweigh the benefits of speed.
**Context**
Brazil’s electronic voting machines, known as *urnas eletrônicas*, were introduced in 1996 to combat rampant fraud in a country with a history of ballot stuffing and vote buying. The machines are standalone devices with no internet connection, using encrypted flash drives to store votes and a sealed, tamper-evident design. After polls close, each machine prints a *boletim de urna* — a receipt showing the vote tally for that specific machine — which is posted publicly at the polling station and sent to the national electoral court (TSE) via an encrypted network. The system has been used in over 20 elections, with no documented case of fraud or hacking in its history, according to the TSE.
In the United States, the conversation around election security has been dominated by concerns over foreign interference, voting machine vulnerabilities, and the spread of misinformation. The 2020 presidential election saw record turnout but also unprecedented challenges to the results, with many Republicans questioning the integrity of mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines. In response, several states have passed laws requiring stricter voter ID, limiting mail-in voting, and mandating hand-count audits. Yet the fundamental question remains: can the U.S. replicate Brazil’s speed without sacrificing the decentralized, paper-based safeguards that many election experts consider essential?
**Análise**
The Brazilian model offers a compelling argument for centralization and uniformity. In Brazil, every voter uses the same type of machine, in every state, in every election. The TSE oversees the entire process, from voter registration to result certification, with a single, unified database. This eliminates the patchwork of local rules and equipment that characterizes American elections. Moreover, the speed of the count reduces the window for misinformation and legal challenges — a critical factor in a country where election results have historically been contested. In 2022, Brazil’s then-president Jair Bolsonaro repeatedly questioned the reliability of the electronic system, but international observers, including the Organization of American States, found no evidence of fraud. The quick, clean count helped quell doubts and allowed the peaceful transfer of power to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
However, the U.S. context is fundamentally different. The American system is deliberately decentralized, with elections administered by thousands of local jurisdictions, each with its own rules and procedures. This is a feature, not a bug, designed to prevent any single point of failure or centralized manipulation. Paper ballots, while slower to count, provide a physical record that can be audited and recounted. Cybersecurity experts argue that paper is the gold standard for election security, as it is immune to hacking. Brazil’s system, while fast, relies on the integrity of the software and hardware — a risk that many American officials are unwilling to take, especially given the heightened partisan polarization and the persistent threat of cyberattacks from foreign adversaries.
**Análise**
The Brazilian experience also highlights the importance of public trust. In Brazil, the electronic voting system is widely accepted by the population, despite occasional criticisms. This trust is built on decades of consistent performance and the TSE’s aggressive efforts to publicize the system’s security features, including public tests and open-source code reviews. In the U.S., trust in elections has eroded significantly, with a large segment of the electorate believing that the 2020 election was stolen, despite no evidence of widespread fraud. No technological solution can fix a crisis of confidence rooted in political polarization and misinformation. As the midterms approach, American officials are focusing on what they can control: ensuring that voting machines are tested, that poll workers are trained, and that the counting process is transparent.
Still, there are lessons to be learned. Brazil’s use of public, machine-printed receipts at each polling station offers a model for transparency that could be adapted to the U.S. system. Similarly, the TSE’s practice of conducting randomized integrity tests on voting machines before each election could be replicated to reassure skeptical voters. Some U.S. states, such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, have already implemented risk-limiting audits, which compare paper ballots to electronic tallies — a hybrid approach that combines the speed of digital counting with the security of paper. The question is whether these measures will be enough to prevent a repeat of the chaos seen in 2020, when delayed results and baseless claims of fraud fueled protests and, ultimately, the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
**Fontes**
This article is based on public statements from the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court (TSE), reports from the Organization of American States on the 2022 Brazilian election, and analyses from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on election security. Additional context was drawn from academic studies on electronic voting systems and interviews with election officials in both countries, as published by reputable news outlets including Reuters, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post.