votes

Close race expected as left-wing Lula seeks fourth non-consecutive term against right-wing Flavio Bolsonaro, son of convicted former president.

Polls have opened in Brazil’s presidential election, once again pitting left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva against a right-wing candidate from the Bolsonaro family – Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Some 160 million registered voters are eligible to cast ballots in Sunday’s elections, which will elect lawmakers, governors and senators.

If no presidential candidate wins more than 50 percent of valid votes, the top two contenders will proceed to a run-off on October 25.

Most opinion polls ahead of the vote showed a close contest, with Lula holding a marginal advantage over Bolsonaro that tightens further in a potential second round.

Lula, of the Workers’ Party, is seeking a fourth nonconsecutive term. The 80-year-old, who previously served as president from 2003 to 2010, wants to continue his series of social programmes aimed at addressing inequality.

Bolsonaro, of the Liberal Party, has promised a hard stance on crime and insecurity. The 45-year-old has also pledged close collaboration with the United States under President Donald Trump.

His father is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence over his role in a coup plot following his election loss to Lula by 1.8 percentage points in 2022. The far-right leader’s conviction and that of several military officers raised questions about the strength of Brazilian democracy, reviving past traumas of the 21-year-long period during which Brazil was ruled by a US-backed military dictatorship.

The presidential election has been dominated by issues such as crime, insecurity and the high cost of living. Corruption and concerns about US intervention in the country’s domestic affairs have also loomed over the campaign.

A recent survey by Quaest says violence was cited as the biggest concern by 31 percent of respondents, followed by corruption (20 percent), economy (19 percent) and healthcare (12 percent).

“The stakes of this election are incredibly stark because the candidates stand for such opposing visions about what Brazil’s recent history means,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera.

He added that while Lula embodies the “consolidation of Brazilian democracy since the end of the dictatorship”, the Bolsonaro family argues that “the institutions that Brazilian democracy has erected since the end of dictatorship are either rotten and unresponsive”.

With reporting by Brian Osgood

Voters cast their ballots for a dizzying number of officials across multiple tiers of government.

Polls have opened in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a general election to choose new leaders at the national and regional levels, in a vote that could affect the country’s European Union membership bid.

On Saturday, about 3.4 million voters are choosing the three members of the country’s multiethnic presidency, lawmakers for the national Parliament and heads of institutions for the country’s two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and Republika Srpska, which is dominated by ethnic Serbs.

Bosnia’s complex web of governing institutions was created by a United States-brokered peace agreement in 1995 in an effort to manage the ethnic divisions between Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats that gave rise to the 1992-95 war.

The major parties’ repeated focus on war-era rhetoric and division was frustrating for some voters, activist Adi Selman of the Karton Revolucija protest group told the AFP news agency.

“I don’t think these new elections in Bosnia will change anything,” the 34-year-old said in the northern Bosnian town of Tuzla, ahead of the vote.

“The choice is limited to political parties that have already been around for 30 years and basically pick up votes by harping on about war, tensions, divisions and the past.”

“Bosnia and Herzegovina is dead; it is an impossible country,” Republika Srpska’s former president, Milorad Dodik, told the final rally of his right-wing Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) in the entity’s capital Banja Luka late on Friday.

EU membership bid

In the FBiH, Bosniak parties are pushing for a stronger central state, with incumbent Bosniak presidency member Denis Becirovic pledging a renewed path to the EU and NATO.

The EU granted Bosnia candidate status in December 2022, but accession negotiations scheduled for 2024 were delayed as Brussels demanded the country pass stronger anticorruption laws and reform its judicial system.

Croat nationalist parties are also pushing for electoral reform, demanding a greater say in choosing the Croat member of the presidency in the entity they share with the more numerous Bosniaks.

Meanwhile, Russia is accused of slowing down the country’s path towards joining the EU, while also holding close ties with the SNSD, which favours secession for Republika Srpska.

This general election is the first in the country in which new electronic tools are being used to scan ballot papers and carry out biometric fingerprint verification in a move to reduce fraud during the election.

Polls close at 7pm (17:00 GMT) and first results are expected later on Sunday.

WASHINGTON — For a third time, the U.S. House has voted to end the war in Iran, approving a war powers resolution that would halt President Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The roll call late Tuesday, 220-204, was similar to earlier efforts this summer, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats voting to bring an end to the conflict. None of the resolutions have made it to the president’s desk, where Trump would almost certainly veto the measure.

“Remember when Donald Trump said that this war would last just a few weeks?” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who served as a Marine during the Iraq War and pushed the resolution forward.

He said it’s time for Congress to “actually ask tough questions, as the Constitution directs us to do, rather than be subservient to another warmongering administration.”

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned which military resources Democrats would want to remove from the region where he said Iran remains a threat.

Mast said Trump is against “forever wars, and that is what he is ending” — the decades of hostilities from Iran.

“They are a continuous ongoing threat to the United States,” Mast said. “Enough is enough.”

Last war powers vote before the midterms

The action is likely the last House vote on the Iran war ahead of the midterm elections, where the conflict overseas is playing a substantial role in the political campaigns. The war that Trump launched Feb. 28 has dragged, with on-again, off-again deadly missile strikes being exchanged and causing havoc in the region for nearly seven months.

Lawmakers are heading home at the end of the week to campaign nearly full-time, with less than 50 days to go before the elections that will determine control of Congress as Democrats try to wrest power from Republicans.

Voters are confronting high prices, particularly for gas at the pumps, as the conflict disrupts the flow of oil resources through the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the war has cost more than $38 billion, as of Aug. 1, and is projected to be costing between $2 billion and $3 billion monthly, depending on the intensity of the fighting. The budget office projected inflation will be 0.5 percentage points higher than expected heading into 2027 due to the war.

Trump himself had promised not to involve the U.S. in foreign wars when he won a second term in the White House, and his actions against Iran are weighing on the Republican Party that controls the House and Senate. Most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting, according to an AP-NORC poll in July.

In the previous House actions, four Republicans voted to halt the war in Iran, but that number rose to seven in Tuesday’s war powers vote, including GOP lawmakers from battleground Iowa, Rep. Zachary Nunn and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and retiring Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

They joined GOP Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky voting in favor of the war powers resolution, with all Democrats.

War powers being put to the test

Congress has tried repeatedly to alter the trajectory of the war against Iran, but efforts to limit the Trump administration’s military action remain a longshot so long as the president is able to fend off or veto the measures.

The House first approved a war powers resolution in June, and followed up with another one in July, all seeking to halt U.S. action in Iran. The Senate on its 10th try also approved a war powers resolution to end the conflict, but GOP senators quickly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a closed-door lunch.

While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it also gives the president authority as the commander in chief to engage in some military actions. The War Powers Act, created in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, sought to put a more specific time limit on the president’s power, requiring congressional approval for sustained military actions after 60 or 90 days.

House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged at a press conference Tuesday the need to bring gas prices down.

But the Republican speaker said he believes the Iran conflict is entering a “new phase” as allies step up to help stabilize the region. When that happens, he said, “you’re going to see, as the president said, anytime gas prices will go down again, the cost of groceries will as well.”

Johnson said Trump expects the shift after the election, and the speaker added, “I’d love it to happen today.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

For a third time, the US House approved a war powers resolution, halting Trump’s ability to continue military action.

For a third time, the US House has voted to end the war in Iran, approving a war powers resolution that would halt President Donald Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The roll call late Tuesday, 220-204, was similar to earlier efforts this summer, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats voting to bring an end to the conflict.

Seven House Republicans backed the resolution, including three voting in favour for the first time.

Iowa congressman Zach Nunn, a Republican, explained his vote saying that “with the negotiating window closed, sustained combat operations now require congressional authorization.”

“I will not support another open-ended war,” Nunn said.

None of the resolutions has made it to the president’s desk, where Trump would almost certainly veto the measure.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned which military resources Democrats would want to remove from the region where he said Iran remains a threat.

Mast said Trump is against “forever wars, and that is what he is ending” – the decades of hostilities from Iran.

“They are a continuous ongoing threat to the United States,” Mast said. “Enough is enough.”

The run-up to the midterms

The action is likely to be the last House vote on the Iran war ahead of the midterm elections, where the conflict overseas is playing a substantial role in the political campaigns. The war that Trump launched on February 28 has dragged on, with on-again, off-again deadly missile strikes being exchanged and causing havoc in the region for nearly seven months.

Lawmakers are heading home at the end of the week to campaign nearly full-time, with fewer than 50 days to go before the elections that will determine control of Congress as Democrats try to wrest power from Republicans.

US war on Iran

The US war on Iran is worsening inflation and straining the country’s munitions stockpiles, a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found.

The report, released on Tuesday, found that the cost of the six-month war has reached $38bn and is expected to rise by $3bn per month. The war is projected to increase inflation by 0.5 percentage points in the first three months of 2027.

Trump himself had promised not to involve the US in foreign wars when he won a second term in the White House, and his actions against Iran are weighing on the Republican Party that controls the House and Senate.

Most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting, according to an AP-NORC poll in July.

Previous war resolutions

Congress has tried repeatedly to alter the trajectory of the war against Iran, but efforts to limit the Trump administration’s military action remain a long shot so long as the president can fend off or veto the measures.

The House first approved a war powers resolution in June, and followed up with another one in July, both seeking to halt US action in Iran. The Senate on its 10th try also approved a war powers resolution to end the conflict, but Republican senators quickly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a closed-door lunch.

While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it also gives the president authority as the commander-in-chief to engage in some military actions. The War Powers Act, created after the Vietnam conflict, sought to impose a more specific time limit on the president’s power, requiring congressional approval for sustained military actions after 60 or 90 days.

WASHINGTON: For a third time, the US House has voted to end the war in Iran, approving a war powers resolution that would halt President Donald Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The roll call late Tuesday, 220-204, was similar to earlier efforts this summer, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats voting to bring an end to the conflict. None of the resolutions have made it to the president’s desk, where Trump would almost certainly veto the measure.

“Remember when Donald Trump said that this war would last just a few weeks?” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who served as a Marine during the Iraq War and pushed the resolution forward.

He said it’s time for Congress to “actually ask tough questions, as the Constitution directs us to do, rather than be subservient to another warmongering administration.”

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned which military resources Democrats would want to remove from the region where he said Iran remains a threat.

Mast said Trump is against “forever wars, and that is what he is ending” — the decades of hostilities from Iran.

“They are a continuous ongoing threat to the United States,” Mast said. “Enough is enough.”

Last war powers vote before the midterms

The action is likely the last House vote on the Iran war ahead of the midterm elections, where the conflict overseas is playing a substantial role in the political campaigns. The war that Trump launched Feb. 28 has dragged, with on-again, off-again deadly missile strikes being exchanged and causing havoc in the region for nearly seven months.

Lawmakers are heading home at the end of the week to campaign nearly full-time, with less than 50 days to go before the elections that will determine control of Congress as Democrats try to wrest power from Republicans.

Voters are confronting high prices, particularly for gas at the pumps, as the conflict disrupts the flow of oil resources through the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the war has cost more than $38 billion, as of Aug. 1, and is projected to be costing between $2 billion and $3 billion monthly, depending on the intensity of the fighting. The budget office projected inflation will be 0.5 percentage points higher than expected heading into 2027 due to the war.

Trump himself had promised not to involve the U.S. in foreign wars when he won a second term in the White House, and his actions against Iran are weighing on the Republican Party that controls the House and Senate. Most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting, according to an AP-NORC poll in July.

In the previous House actions, four Republicans voted to halt the war in Iran, but that number rose to seven in Tuesday’s war powers vote, including GOP lawmakers from battleground Iowa, Rep. Zachary Nunn and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and retiring Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

They joined GOP Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky voting in favor of the war powers resolution, with all Democrats.

War powers being put to the test

Congress has tried repeatedly to alter the trajectory of the war against Iran, but efforts to limit the Trump administration’s military action remain a longshot so long as the president is able to fend off or veto the measures.

The House first approved a war powers resolution in June, and followed up with another one in July, all seeking to halt U.S. action in Iran. The Senate on its 10th try also approved a war powers resolution to end the conflict, but GOP senators quickly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a closed-door lunch.

While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it also gives the president authority as the commander in chief to engage in some military actions. The War Powers Act, created in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, sought to put a more specific time limit on the president’s power, requiring congressional approval for sustained military actions after 60 or 90 days.

House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged at a press conference Tuesday the need to bring gas prices down.

But the Republican speaker said he believes the Iran conflict is entering a “new phase” as allies step up to help stabilize the region. When that happens, he said, “you’re going to see, as the president said, anytime gas prices will go down again, the cost of groceries will as well.”

Johnson said Trump expects the shift after the election, and the speaker added, “I’d love it to happen today.”

STOCKHOLM: Sweden began voting Sunday in a general election after a tight race that will see either the far-right enter government for the first time or the left-wing opposition reclaim power.

Opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the Social Democrats was among the first to cast her ballot after polling stations opened at 8:00 am (0600 GMT).

Clad in a pale blue suit, the 59-year-old who in 2021-2022 became the first woman to serve as Sweden’s prime minister voted with her husband at a school in her home municipality of Nacka, south of Stockholm.

Opinion polls have long credited the four parties in her left-wing bloc with a comfortable lead over conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s four-party alliance, which includes the far-right Sweden Democrats.

But the gap narrowed to a dead heat in the final days of the campaign.

“It is now up to the Swedish people to decide which direction our country should take. Should we have a government entirely dominated by the Sweden Democrats? Something that has never happened in Sweden before? Or should we have a government led by me, which will steer Sweden in a new spirit of cooperation?” Andersson told reporters after voting.

Her party, which governed the Scandinavian country for the better part of the 20th century and remains Sweden’s largest, has pledged to bolster the welfare state and help struggling households cope with rising costs.

‘Make Sweden great again’

Outgoing Prime Minister Kristersson has meanwhile vowed to focus on improving Swedes’ everyday lives now that his government’s clampdown on organised crime and immigration has begun to show results.

Deadly shootings and bombings by organised crime networks have decreased significantly in recent years, and asylum applications are at a record low.

“We want to use our new and far better preconditions to improve the lives of ordinary people… to make Sweden great again,” Kristersson told AFP before the vote, borrowing Donald Trump’s famous catchphrase.

His three-party minority coalition cut a deal in 2022 with the Sweden Democrats giving them influence over government policy, in particular on immigration and crime, in exchange for their support in parliament.

Over the past two decades, far-right leader Jimmie Akesson has steered the party with neo-Nazi roots into the mainstream.

It is now hoping to enter government. Kristersson has promised the far right key cabinet posts if the right-wing wins the election.

“I think it’s a very important election this year, and hopefully a lot of people will realise that we have to change course… so that everyone will feel included in society,” store manager Linda Eriksson, 48, told AFP as she voted at a polling station.

Ingrid Rudien, a 64-year-old assistant secretary, said she hoped the country “can unite together as a nation even though we may have a close result”.

‘We’ve already won!’

Akesson was confident of victory at a final election rally on Saturday in the Swedish capital.

“We’ve already won!” the 47-year-old said to thunderous applause in Stockholm’s Kungstradgarden Park.

“Sweden is becoming safer, better, and more Swedish,” he said, surrounded by blue and yellow campaign posters blaring “Make Sweden Sweden Again”.

Agneta Andersson, a 78-year-old pensioner attending the rally, told AFP she was voting for the far right.

“Like Jimmie, I want it to be like it was when I was young, in the old Sweden. I can’t cope with all this violence in society.”

Voting stations close at 8:00 pm (1800 GMT) when exit polls were to be published, with the first reliable results expected several hours later.

Some eight million people are eligible to vote in the election, in a country of 10.6 million where voter turnout regularly tops 80 percent.

Around half of voters have cast their ballots in advance.

If the right wing were to win the election, the formation of a new government would be fairly straightforward.

But as the four left-wing parties are splintered ideologically, tough negotiations would be needed to form a government even if they hold a majority.