Dataset of Municipal Supplementary Elections in Brazil (2004-2018)
Description
This dataset compiles the results of 478 Brazilian supplementary elections pertaining to the municipal elections of 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016. The main hypothesis is that the judicialization of municipal electoral competition has become an additional strategy used by political actors because of its effectiveness. The innovation of the dataset is to present the political alignment of the political actors involved in the supplementary elections, besides highlighting the legal reasons for the substitution of mayors.
Files
Steps to reproduce
The dataset was constructed from four different sources. The first is the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) data repository, which contains information about the results of the elections in Brazil, especially those elected in regular and supplementary elections, their respective votes and the total number of voters able to vote in those elections. The second data source, also managed by the TSE, is the system for the dissemination of candidacies and accountability (DivulgaCandContas), from which data can be obtained on the party coalitions that competed in the regular and supplementary elections. Finally, data on the population estimated for the municipalities studied were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The information on the reasons that determined the new elections in each municipality, as well as the respective legal grounds, were obtained in the systems of the Regional Electoral Courts of the States (TRE’s). The composition of his party coalition was used as a criterion to position a candidate as being opposed to the previous government. If the former mayor's party was part of the coalition of the next mayor, he was treated as an ally candidate. Otherwise, it was considered as opposing. This same criterion was adopted in the alignment of the authorship of the deposition actions. If they were tried by a party or coalition of which the defendant was not part, they remained classified as opposing. Kinzo's criterion (2004, 2007) was used to establish the ideological position of the parties (left, center and right). When the party was only the result of a name change or the split of another party, the ideological alignment of the original party was considered. When the party was effectively a new political actor, its most common alliances and possible positions on substantive issues were considered (KINZO, 2007, p, 153).