I agree with the elections not being free or fair, etc. but the analysis of violence is way off and completely misses the point about who worries about violence in Brazil (and elsewhere in Latin America).
Even though poor people are disproportionately affected, it is the middle classes whose lives are most intensely defined by fear of violence, as I said.
I work in the polling industry and what I see over and over again is that crime is not one of the top priorities in the regions most significantly struck by it (they tend to be concerned with healthcare, education, etc.), whereas it is regularly listed as the top priority in middle class regions.
Also, the author claims some of the regions that voted for Bolsonaro have crime rates that are similar to Canada and Europe, which is absurd. 'Very low' homicide rates for Brazilian cities are 10x the Canadian average, and you are probably at least 100x more likely to be robbed at gunpoint in a 'safe' Brazilian neighbourhood than in a typical Canadian or European neighbourhood.
In the upper-class municipality where I live in Chile we have a homicide rate of 2.5 / 100,000, but there are hundreds of robberies at gunpoint and the mayoral election is decided almost entirely by crime-fighting stances.
That said, and as I have insisted all along, Lula would have most likely beat Bolsonaro anyway.