Lula gained nearly 3 million votes in the Northeast from the first to the second round; Flávio advanced by 398,000

Between the two rounds, both candidates increased their Northeast vote totals, but Lula’s growth was much larger. His total rose from 21,494,584 to 24,450,432, an increase of 2,955,848 votes. Flávio Bolsonaro went from 10,398,973 to 10,796,736, adding 397,763 votes.

The difference came from the size of their gains. Lula received more than seven times as many additional votes as Flávio. The article reports that Lula’s vote total increased in every Northeastern state. Flávio also gained in nearly all states, but lost votes in Maranhão.

These changes strengthened Lula’s regional position in the runoff. His lead over Flávio expanded by about 2.6 million votes and reached approximately 13.6 million in the second round. The percentages also shifted, with Lula rising from 63.77% to 69.37% of valid votes, while Flávio moved from 30.85% to 30.63%.

A first round is the opening vote in which several candidates compete. If no candidate reaches the required winning threshold, a second round, or runoff, is held. It gives voters a direct choice between the leading candidates. This is why the two rounds can have different vote distributions.

In the election described, the first round included other candidates, so valid votes were divided among more than Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro. The second round was contested only by Lula and Flávio. The article does not list the other first-round candidates or explain the qualifying rule, but it explicitly states that the runoff had only these two names.

That narrower ballot matters when comparing percentages. Lula’s first-round share was 63.77%, and Flávio’s was 30.85%. In the second round, with only two candidates, Lula received 69.37% and Flávio 30.63% of valid votes.

The scale of Lula’s gain was the central numerical story. He added 2,955,848 votes between the first and second rounds. Flávio Bolsonaro added 397,763. Lula therefore gained roughly 2.6 million more votes than Flávio during the same period.

The totals show how that advantage accumulated. Lula rose from 21,494,584 to 24,450,432 votes in the Northeast. Flávio increased from 10,398,973 to 10,796,736. Subtracting the second-round totals leaves Lula ahead by 13,653,696 votes, described in the article as about 13.6 million.

This was not just a regional total produced by one state. Lula’s vote count increased in every Northeastern state. Bahia supplied his largest increase, with 820,487 additional votes. The regional result also lifted his valid-vote share from 63.77% to 69.37%, while Flávio’s share edged down from 30.85% to 30.63%.

A candidate’s vote total can rise sharply in a runoff because the first round and second round measure different choices. In the first round, votes are spread across several candidates. After that vote, the contest narrows to two finalists, so supporters of eliminated candidates may choose one finalist, leave the ballot blank, cast an invalid vote, or not vote.

The article highlights this comparison issue directly. First-round valid votes were distributed among other candidates, but the second round was contested only by Lula and Flávio. Therefore, the finalists could gain votes even though fewer candidates appeared on the ballot.

In the Northeast, Lula’s total rose by 2,955,848 votes, while Flávio’s rose by 397,763. The article does not identify how each additional vote was transferred or whether voters changed participation. It shows only the totals and notes that Lula’s lead expanded to about 13.6 million votes.

The regional advantage grew in every Northeastern state because Lula’s increase exceeded Flávio’s increase in each one. The article reports that Lula advanced throughout the region. This comparison concerns vote totals, not necessarily a documented explanation of voter behavior.

Maranhão was the clearest exception on Flávio’s side. Lula gained 241,930 votes there, moving from 2,566,301 to 2,808,231. Flávio lost 9,069, falling from 1,239,040 to 1,229,971. Together, those movements expanded Lula’s advantage by 250,999 votes.

The article does not state why Flávio lost votes in Maranhão. It establishes the result through Tribunal Superior Eleitoral data analyzed by g1. In the second round, Lula held 69.54% of valid votes in the state, while Flávio had 30.46%, compared with 63.99% and 30.90% in the first.

The immediate consequence was a much wider Lula advantage in the final two-candidate contest. Between the rounds, Lula gained 2,955,848 Northeast votes, while Flávio Bolsonaro gained only 397,763. Because Lula’s increase was so much larger, the regional gap widened by about 2.6 million votes.

The final totals make the scale clear. Lula finished the second round with 24,450,432 votes in the Northeast. Flávio finished with 10,796,736. Their difference was 13,653,696 votes, rounded in the article to about 13.6 million. Lula’s lead therefore became substantially larger than it had been after the first round.

The percentage result pointed in the same direction. Lula’s share of valid regional votes rose from 63.77% to 69.37%. Flávio’s share changed from 30.85% to 30.63%. The article also reports that Lula’s advantage increased in every Northeastern state.

Valid votes are votes that election authorities accept and attribute to candidates. In general election usage, blank and invalid ballots are excluded from this total. The article uses valid votes to compare Lula and Flávio, but it does not provide a fuller legal definition of the category.

A candidate’s percentage can rise in a runoff because the first round includes more candidates. Lula’s 63.77% first-round share was calculated while valid votes were distributed among other candidates. In the runoff, only Lula and Flávio remained, so the valid-vote denominator reflected a two-person contest.

That change does not mean Lula won every person who participated earlier. Supporters of eliminated candidates could choose either finalist, abstain, or submit a blank or invalid ballot. The article reports Lula at 69.37% in the runoff and Flávio at 30.63%, while noting that the two rounds represent different scenarios.