Assembly Elections 2017–2018
| DOI | 10.1177/2321023019838879 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Author | Himanshu Bhattacharya,Vibha Attri |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Special Statistics |
Assembly Elections 2017–2018
Studies in Indian Politics
7(1) 100–129, 2019
© 2019 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/2321023019838879
journals.sagepub.com/home/inp
Vibha Attri1
Himanshu Bhattacharya2
Studies in Indian Politics presents statistical report on the election results in all states which went to polls
from 2017 to 2018.3 Data Unit of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) earlier
presented similar statistics (for elections that took place prior to 2014) through the pages of Economic
& Political Weekly (EPW) and (for elections that took place between 2014 and 2016) in Studies in Indian
Politics, Volume 5 (1).
The data source is the Election Commission data compiled by CSDS data unit. The analysis covers
aggregate data for these states which includes the performances of all the parties in various regions
classified by the Data Unit of CSDS (based on the districts classified by Election Commission of India).
It also provides data on performance of major alliances and parties by various types of constituencies.
The classification of constituencies by their rural–urban nature is based on Census 2001 and the
description of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002–2008 read with
the urban/rural location indicated on the top sheet of electoral rolls for each polling booth area.
Computation and classification have been done by the Data Unit of CSDS.
The classification of constituencies by religious groups is based on Census 2001 and the description
of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002–2008. However, it may be
noted that the census does not provide information on religion below Tehsil/Taluka/Block level and that
a constituency often cuts across these administrative units. So, in order to arrive at constituency level
estimates of religious groups, the ‘principle of proportionality’ was used to aggregate and disaggregate
population below these administrative units.
The effective number of parties (ENP) for each election is calculated by weighting the contribution of
parties to the total number of parties with their respective votes (effective number of electoral parties
Disclaimer: The full form of all the party abbreviations provided in the text can be seen from http://www.lokniti.org/pdf/India-
Political-Parties.pdf
1 Researcher, Lokniti, CSDS, Delhi, India.
2 Data Analyst, Lokniti, CSDS, Delhi, India.
3 It excludes the last set of elections that took place in December 2018 (Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and
Mizoram) due to unavailability of updated figures on Election Commission’s website.
Corresponding author:
Vibha Attri, Lokniti (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054, India.
E-mail: vibhaattri@gmail.com
Attri and Bhattacharya 101
excluding independents and other smaller parties) or seats (effective number of parliamentary parties
excluding independents and smaller parties). It is calculated by using Laakso and Taagepera (1979)
formula: N = 1/Σπ2 where N is the ENP, r is each party’s fractional share of seats or vote and Σ stands
for the summation of overall components.
Twelfth Assembly Elections in Goa 2017
A single-day poll for 40 assembly seats in Goa4 was held on 4 February 2017. The state witnessed a
high voter turnout at 82.5 per cent which was more or less the same as last elections. These elections
witnessed a hung assembly in the state with the Congress party emerging as the single largest party
by winning 17 seats while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) bagged 13. The incumbent Chief
Minister, Laxmikant Parsekar and six other BJP ministers lost the elections, showing the extent of
anti-incumbency sentiment in the state. Despite being the 2nd largest party, the BJP formed a coalition
government in the state with the support of 21 MLA’s—3 each from MAG and GFP and 2 independents,
besides its 13 elected representatives. Manohar Parrikar resigned from his post as the Defence Minister
and was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the state.
A disaggregated analysis of the results shows that in North Goa, a stronghold of the BJP having a
higher Hindu concentration saw the Congress winning nine seats and eight seats went to the BJP. From
the remaining six seats, 2 each went to MAG, GFP and other smaller parties. In terms of vote share
though the verdict was in favour of the BJP in this region as it secured 35.8 per cent of the votes, 8 per-
centage points ahead of the Congress, but one needs to note that MAG which was an ally of the BJP in
the last elections damaged the BJP’s vote and grabbed 2 seats and 15 per cent of the votes in this region.
On the other hand in South Goa, the traditional stronghold of the Congress and where most Goan
Table 1. All Party Performance
Seats
Change from
Change from
Vote (%) in
Parties
Contested
Seats Won
2012
Vote (%)
2012
Seat Contested
Congress
37
17
+8
28.35
–2.43
30.36
BJP
36
13
–8
32.48
–2.20
36.06
MAG
25
3
–
11.27
+4.55
17.42
GFP
4
3
+3
3.48
+3.48
35.02
NCP
17
1
+1
2.28
–1.80
5.47
AAP
39
–
–
6.27
+6.27
6.45
GVP
5
–
–2
0.59
–2.91
4.62
NOTA
40
–
–
1.19
+1.19
Other parties
93
3
–2
14.09
–6.15
Notes: (i) Turn out: 82.56% (0.38 percentage points lower than 2012). Effective number of parties (votes): 4.886. Effective
number of parties (seats): 3.354.
(ii) Other parties include: GSP, UGDP, GSRP, SHS, GPP, BMUP, CPI, other smaller parties and independents.
4 A post-poll survey in Goa was conducted by Lokniti–CSDS with a total sample size was 1,748. The Topline results of the survey
can be accessed from https://www.lokniti.org/media/PDF-upload/1536315682_17507600_download_report.pdf
TA
O
N
Vote
1.19
1.27
1.08
ties
Vote
14.68
11.53
19.00
n
3
2
1
Other Par
Wo
Vote
6.27
4.97
8.04
AAP
n
0
0
0
Wo
Vote
3.48
3.76
3.10
GFP
n
3
2
1
Wo
Vote
2.28
0.60
4.59
NCP
n
1
0
1
Wo
Vote
6.10
11.27
15.04
AG
M
n
3
2
1
Wo
Vote
32.48
35.81
27.91
BJP
n
Wo
13
8
5
ess
Vote
28.35
27.02
30.18
Congr
n
Wo
17
9
8
Turnout
82.56
84.80
79.67
Total
Seats
40
23
17
Result by Regions
erall
th Goa
Table 2.
Ov
Nor
South Goa
Attri and Bhattacharya 103
Catholics are concentrated saw Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) making an impressive debut in the state.
Although the party failed to open its account it managed to cut the votes of Congress in this region by
securing 8 per cent of the votes in these elections. South Goa also witnessed a lower turnout compared
to North Goa.
Fifteenth Assembly Elections in Punjab 2017
A single-day poll to elect 117 members of the Punjab5 Legislative Assembly was held on 4 February
2017. The Congress under the leadership of Amarinder Singh decimated the incumbent SAD–BJP alli-
ance by winning 77 seats. The ruling SAD–BJP alliance faced a humiliating defeat and was reduced to
18 seats. While SAD won 15 seats, its alliance partner BJP could win only 3 seats. The elections saw a
further erosion of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which was not successful on any seat (like the previous
elections) but also saw a loss of 2.7 per cent in its vote share. Congress dominated all the three regions
of the state–Majha, Doaba and Malwa. In Majha region, the party gave its best performance (10 of the
11 seats in the Amritsar district). Of the six seats won by SAD+ in the Doaba region, four came from
Jalandhar district and one each from Kapurthala and Nawan Shahr. AAP was considered a strong force
in the Malwa region where it won 18 out of its total of twenty.
SAD+ saw a decline of 30 seats in the constituencies where Sikhs constitute 60 per cent of the popula-
tion and 10 seats and 8 per cent vote share in constituencies with a high concentration of Hindu popula-
tion. AAP clearly cut the vote share of SAD+ in the Sikh dominated seats as it was victorious in 18 such
seats. SAD+ gave its best performance in seats where no single community dominated. It won 9 such
seats. Congress won 15 of the total 19 seats where Hindus constitute 60 per cent of the population and
24 of the total 36 seats where no single community dominated.
Table 3. All Party Performance
Seats
Change from
Change from
Vote (%) in
Parties
Contested
Seats Won
2012
Vote (%)
2012
Seat Contested
Congress
117
77
+31
38.48
–1.61
38.48
BJP + Akali Dal
117
18
–50
30.75
–11.16
BJP
23
3
–3
5.39
–1.79
29.95
Akali Dal
94
15
–41
25.36
–9.37
30.93
AAP
112
20
+20
23.62
+23.62
24.52
LIP
6
2
+2
1.23
+1.23
26.47
BSP
112
–
–
1.52
–2.77
1.58
Akali Dal (M)
53
–
–
0.31
+0.03
0.66
NOTA
117
–
–
0.70
+0.70
Other parties
630
0
–3
3.39
–10.04
Notes: (i) Voter turnout was 77.20% (1.10 percentage points lower than 2012). Effective number of parties (votes): 3.683.
Effective number of parties (seats): 2.085.
(ii) Other parties include: APP, RMPI, CPI, CPI(M), AITC, CPIML(L), DSP, SHS, BSP(A), HSS, BMUP, DPIA, BDP, JJJKP,
NAIP, SAKP, PNDP, HUP, NCP, JKNP, SWP, SPP, RPA, IUML, RSP, other smaller parties and independents.
5 A post-poll survey in Punjab was conducted by Lokniti–CSDS with a total sample size of 3,268. The topline results of the survey
can be accessed from https://www.lokniti.org/media/PDF-upload/1536315568_18969300_download_report.pdf.
TA
TA
O
O
N
Vote
0.70
0.68
0.76
0.69
N
Vote
0.70
0.70
0.70
ties
Vote
5.22
4.69
8.51
4.41
ties
Vote
5.22
5.40
5.15
n
n
Other Par
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wo
Other Par
Wo
Vote
1.23
0.00
0.01
1.99
Vote
1.23
0.01
1.73
LIP
LIP
n
n
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
Wo
Wo
Vote
23.62...
To continue reading
Request your trial