Elections Have Consequences

Lok Sabha election 2014: Big margins show voters were decisive

Suryakiran Tiwari 5 Jun 2014 
This is an article  from my friend who has studied  Indian politics  and elections  extensively. Now I can hear some collective sighs from the readers.  My point is the bold points at the end. He has  highlighted   what it takes to have elections have consequences in your favor. The democrat party in the US discovered these points in elections in 2008 and 2012 and they won. Now the poor and young of India have  used the strategy to their advantage. There are people in the US who are dissatisfied with  the current leadership. Read and learn from  the
world’s largest democracy!
1.  high turn-out
2. vote in blocks
3. register new voters and insure they vote
4.  young, educated voters
5. vote out “misrule, persistent inflation, corruption, and scandals”
6. 66.38% of eligible voters voted!
The 2009 Lok Sabha election was a very close contest. 113 out of 53 seats were decided on a victory margin of less than 3 per cent (0-1 per cent in 37 seats, 1-2 per cent in 40 seats, 2-3 per cent in 36 seats). Andhra Pradesh accounted for 11, Bihar 4, Chhattisgarh 4, Gujarat 9, Jharkhand 4, Karnataka 8, Kerala 7, Madhya Pradesh 8, Punjab 4, Tamil Nadu 7 and Uttar Pradesh 19 of these seats (major states). UP and Bihar, even AP to some extent, witnessed multi-cornered contests.

On 76 seats, the victory margin was less than 15,000 votes (0-5k in 25 seats, 5-10k in 24 seats, 10-15k in 27 seats). Congress won 34 (runner up 23) and BJP 22 (runner up 26) in these close battles.

Two key things pointed to an even closer contest in 2014

(i) High fever campaign: It was a high-tech campaign, extravagant spending by parties. Lots at stake. Campaign touched low levels with personal attacks on top leaders and allegations of black money being used in elections. The country was polarized between pro-Modi and anti-Modi camps and each ensuring that they vote to defeat the other. Rise in voting percentage was witness to this fact.

(ii) Multi-cornered contest: A lot of States were facing 3 / 4 cornered contests. This was either due to emergence of new parties or Modi who ran a relentless campaign to increase BJP presence even in its non-traditional vote-bank regions.

(a) West Bengal (42 seats)
It faced a 4-cornered contest. Traditionally it has been a Congress vs Left battle, Congress position replaced by TMC more than a decade ago. In 2009, Mamata and Congress had an alliance, so a direct fight was between UPA and Left. This time Mamata and Congress parted ways. The Modi wave resulted in a TMC vs Left vs Congress vs BJP contest.

(b) Tamil Nadu (39 seats)

It has traditionally been a DMK vs AIADMK battle. National parties like Congress / BJP usually align with any of these. Last time Congress plus DMK took on AIADMK. This time DMK was not with Congress. Besides, BJP stitched together a grand alliance of smaller parties (DMDK, MDMK, PMK). Hence it was a 4-cornered contest.

(c) Uttar Pradesh (80 seats)

Even in 2009 it was a 4-cornered contest (BJP vs BSP vs SP vs Congress). Severe polarisation was expected as Muslims feared the BJP. Muzaffarnagar riots added fuel to the fire. Majority of the seats were expected to witness very close contests.

(d) Andhra Pradesh (42 seats)

In 2009 it was essentially a Congress vs (TDP + TRS) fight. With bifurcation, stakes were high. Telengana was witnessing a 3 cornered contest (TRS vs Congress vs NDA) with Rao refusing to align with Congress post announcement of a separate state, a promise he made earlier. Its partner of last elections Naidu was with BJP this time. All three alliances were claiming credit for creation of Telangana.

In Seemandhra, Jagan Reddy’s newly formed party (YSR Congress) emerged as strong contender. TDP and BJP were giving it a tough fight. Though Congress was decimated, it was expected to garner support of some of its traditional vote-bank and cause a split of votes.

(e) Delhi (7 seats)

Delhi has always been a Congress vs BJP fight. Emergence of AAP made this fight triangular. AAP formed Government early this year with outside support of Congress but resigned in 49 days on the issue of Lokpal. They seem to have lost some support due to this, but Delhi is their karmabhoomi and they were expected to make a dent into both Congress and BJP vote share.

(f) Odisha (21 seats)

In 2009, Odisha witnessed a triangular contest (Congress vs BJP vs BJD), but BJP after separation from BJD has been weakened. It got nil seats in 2009. Modi magic was expected to make it an intense battle.

This made a total of 231 seats (43 per cent of Lok Sabha strength) where the contest was multi-cornered and victory margins were expected to be less. AAP also positioned itself as a contender and caught the imagination of voters. It was expected to make an impact in 53 predominantly urban constituencies.

Results were the opposite! Candidates romped home with huge margins

Despite things pointing to a photo finish, BJP won landslide victory winning 282 seats and majority on its own.

In 2009, 404 seats were decided on a victory margin of less than or equal to 1 lakh votes. In 2014 this number declined by 47 per cent and only 190 seats were decided by less than 1 lakh votes. The number of seats with lesser margins reduced while number of seats with higher margins increased manifold.

BJP won 206 / 282 seats (73 per cent) with a victory margin of greater than 1 lakh votes. NDA won 237 such seats out of its total tally of 336. TMC, AIADMK and BJD won 74 seats with greater than1 lakh margin.

Despite Multi-Cornered Contest & Presence of AAP, majority seats decided by bigger margins

So why did victory margins increase compared to 2009?

(i) Voting percentages increased from 58.2 per cent to 66.38 per cent. Usually, high turnouts imply bad news for incumbent Governments.

(ii) Hindus, who comprise of 80 per cent of the national population on an average, polarized their voting in favor of BJP.

(iii) There were 100 million new and 23.1 million or 2.7 per cent of the total eligible voters were aged 18–19 years. These people are educated and are impacted by social media where BJP had considerable presence.

(iv) 10 years of UPA misrule, high persistent inflation, corruption scandals and low job creation led to massive anti-incumbency wave against Congress. This anti-establishment vote in most States went to BJP except for Tamil Nadu, Odisha, West Bengal.

“The little children( young democracy of India) shall lead them.)”

Be decisive! 

 


About annetbell

I am a retired elementary teacher, well seasoned world traveler,new blogger, grandmother, and a new enthusiastic discoverer of the wonderfully complex country of India. Anne
Aside | This entry was posted in India, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences

  1. pflead73 says:

    The analysis has been nicely put.
    For the first time in India, a party declared development and progress as its primary motive and won the elections. History says that earlier all parties would have points favoring a particular religion, caste or section of the society and then winning the election. It’s really good to see the educated turning out in larger numbers and voting for what they really want.

    • annetbell says:

      That is so true. The young Indians we spoke to just want jobs and to be part of the middle class. Mr. Modi is a dynamic visionary leader. We lived in his state of Gujarat. He will be the leader of all of India because he aspires to International leadership. Thanks for the comment.

  2. LAMarcom says:

    I weep for my country

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s