Mediaboss Marketing

A rally in Copacabana, Brazil in the lead up to the election. Photograph: Prcio Augusto Mardini Farias/GuardianWitness

A woman, being re-elected in a traditionally sexist Latin country as ours, first of all means that we can learn to be a little less prejudiced. Secondly, but no less important, it means that Brazil has decided to be more inclusive. The last 12 years have seen huge advancements for the country: we have left UNs hunger map and have brought nearly 50 million people into the middle classes. This is the real impact of a leftist government - underprivileged people can now plan to go to university (public universities in Brazil are 100% free and the Labour government has built almost 200 of them). There are more schools and hospitals spread around the country than ever before.

Today, around 56 million people claim benefits and some 12 millions have given them up in the past years because they felt they no longer needed this government support. This means that many people in low paid jobs were able to go back to school, better themselves, make plans for the future - which of course makes all the difference! People who used to live from hand to mouth can now plan to buy a house through government programmes, can get a decent education and move up in life.

We cannot deny that theres been corruption, theres been embezzlement and white collar crimes. But to believe that the right-wing candidate was going to be the one to end it is childish and naive! He himself is involved in many corruption scandals and its hard to see why hed do anything about it! Corruption is part of the political game and only a reform in the system would make it possible to end it - and this has never been in the right-wing agenda, but Dilma has already said she plans to have a referendum to know what people want on that matter.

So, as a woman, a feminist and a socialist, I am very glad that Dilma has won! 4 more years for the left, I can only be happy about that.

Rousseff voters are concentrated in the post six in Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro.

Sent via Guardian Witness

Im Brazilian and I think I can speak about this. The truth is: Dilma Rousseff has only won due to the obligatory voting. Dilma won at the Northern and Northeastern states, where most of the population is poor. They feared losing their social programs as Bolsa-Famlia if Acio Neves had won the elections, which wouldnt happen, so,they voted on Dilma.

I think most of people from those regions neither really known the other candidate. Those people who arent interested on politics and they vote who is already the government. If voting wasnt an obligation, they would neither worry about that.

I dont think that Rousseffs re-election was a good thing. I dont deny that the current government and the previous one were good for the poorest parts of the country, but its a lie to say that millions of people are out of poverty, as many foreign newspapers say. I live here and say that no one is out of poverty. The current government uses social programs to literally buy votes: $28 per child. Its that what the government gives people here to help them to support their families. The problem is that most of the time these people uses money on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes instead of buying food and clothing for the children. It was a social handout often criticised by Rousseff and da Silva (President Lula) when they were younger, but ironically used by their government.

Continued here:
Obligatory voting, socialism and corruption: Brazilians tell us what they think about Rouseff's re-election