There is sometimes a dichotomy between the share of total number of votes received by a political party and the number of seats it actually wins, whether in the parliament or in the state legislative assemblies. This dichotomy has been seen in Bihar elections also. While there is nothing wrong or unusual about it, those trying to use ‘vote theft’ as an excuse for the devastating defeat are taking refuge in it.
It does serve a purpose for those trying to justify the defeat, that too, when pitch had already been raised about possible ‘vote chori’ in Bihar. And they have started using this dichotomy as a “proof” of their allegations.
The Rashtriya Janata Dal of Lalu Prasad Yadav got 23 per cent vote share and won only 25 seats. The Bharatiya Janata Party in comparison got 20 per cent vote share and won 89 seats. The Janta Dal-United got 19.25 per cent vote share and managed to win 85 seats. Similarly, the Congress got 8.7 per cent vote share and won six seats only, while the Lok Janshakti Party got about 5 per cent vote share and still won 19 seats.
Anyone using common sense would wonder why the parties with more vote share could get far too less seats as compared to those having received less vote share but more seats. This is because these figures are not complete in themselves. The parties do not win seats in proportion to the percentage of votes they get. Because, every assembly segment is an “individual unit” with different size of electorate (the number of voters), the percentage of polling in the particular segment and the margin of victory.
The RJD did get 23 per cent vote share, while the BJP and the JD-U could get 20 and 19 per cent respectively, because the RJD contested 143 seats, while the BJP and the JD-U contested 101 seats each. When the vote share is calculated, it is calculated for all the constituencies contested by the party. More seats a party contests, the more votes it gets which adds to its vote share percentage. Similar was the case with the Congress and the LJP. The Congress contested 61 seats, while the LJP contested 29 seats only, less than half of the Congress.
It is actually the total vote share of the party or the alliance that is counted. In this election the NDA alliance polled about 48 per cent vote share, while the Mahagathbandhan got 38 per cent votes. Ten per cent difference in vote share is massive and it was reflected in the final result in terms of the number of seats, with NDA getting 202 seats, while the Mahagathbandhan could get 35 seats only.
This has not happened for the first time and is nothing unusual. It has happened in the past also in other states and even other countries, particularly the United States.
Also read: ‘Vote theft’ claim benefits NDA more than Congress
In the 2016 US Presidential elections when Donald Trump in his first term defeated Hillary Clinton, Trump got less votes than her. While Clinton received 65.8 million votes, Trump got around 63 million votes only. Despite that Trump won as he got more overall “electoral college” votes.
In India the electoral unit is an assembly or a parliamentary constituency whose size in terms of votes is not uniform. As already mentioned, it also depends on the size of the constituency in terms of the number of voters, the voter turnout on the particular election day besides the victory margin. It is possible that the losing party winning a lesser number of seats may have won with larger margins and the winning party with more seats may have won with lesser margins.
While the Congress and the RJD have already started building up a narrative about the Bihar elections not being fair, they have not officially used this argument about the dichotomy between the vote share and the actual number of seats, knowing well that it will not stand public scrutiny. However, various social media handles supporting the two parties have already launched a campaign citing the difference as the “proof” of “vote theft”.
Since the issue is complex, it does create doubt and confusion among a majority of people who are not able to understand the reasons for the difference in the vote share and the actual number of seats. The parties getting it done manage to weave around a narrative that they have actually been wronged. This helps them to retain their supporters who easily believe that their parties and leaders have been wronged. Even the neutral and non-aligned voters start asking questions as to how it is possible that a party getting more votes has won fewer seats.
At a time when facts are easily being compromised and selectively misused, the issue has come handy for those who want an excuse and an alibi to support their charge about vote theft.
Follow us
