Centre Right India

THE GUJARAT ELECTORAL CALCULUS

AN ANALYSIS OF GUJARAT 2012 POLLS Albatross In Flight

THE GUJARAT ELECTORAL CALCULUS

PART 1: ANALYSING THE PAST ELECTORAL DATA
This election analysis trilogy is dedicated to Offstumped (Shashi Shekhar), one of the finest political brains that the Indian right has produced in the digital era.

The Creator of the universe works in mysterious ways. But he uses a base 10 counting system and likes round numbers.
Scot Adams

Predicting

electoral outcomes in India is almost an occult science that involves a lot of mysteries like imagined caste-vote tilts and representative sample sizes that try to fathom voter perceptions regarding governments performance et al. For a nation of 1.2 billion people with a million castes/religions/languages/ethnic groups, even after 65 years of independence, we are totally clueless about the percentage of population of different subgroups. In fact, for more than 50 years all electoral pundits have been quoting lefty-CSDS percentages for all sorts of population based permutations and combinations. What is even more heart-breaking is that most of the CSDS-type data is based on weighted representations of sample-sizes as low as interviewing 700 people in a state! To add to this huge gap in our databases is the total opaqueness of the election commission of India which has never released polling booth level voting numbers to the wider public scrutiny. Polling booth level voting data is released to the political parties and contesting candidates by the election commission and it is a herculean task to get access to that data. Although this author has succeeded in collating some polling booth level data in some states, that database has a lot of gaps and is by no means exhaustive. In any case, another stumbling block for such a polling-booth level database is the fact that it is available only from the EVM era of 2004 onwards as there was no practical way of maintaining such a database in the paperballot era. The upcoming Gujarat election is the first opportunity for us at ECRI to try and plug some of these gaps in the electoral data by collating and superimposing different databases from different sources. This is our humble effort to analyse opinion polls and past electoral data on one single platform to get a better understanding of Indian electoral calculus and eventually produce better predictive models.

District-wise electoral map of Gujarat

One of the primary flaws in our understanding of the Indian electoral scene is the lack of a visual geographic electoral-topography. As we have seen in the electoral-college methodology of the US presidential elections, understanding the dominance of a political party in each district in a similar fashion in the Indian context can give us a better visual understanding of electoral politics.

Representative electoral map of Gujarat after the 2007 assembly elections. Saffron represents BJP dominant areas whereas Blue represents Congress dominant areas.

Representative electoral map of Gujarat after the 2009 LS elections. Saffron represents BJP dominant areas whereas Blue represents Congress dominant areas. What is clear from the above maps is that BJPs strength in the Saurashtra region has been considerably eroded in the 2009 LS polls as compared to its performance in the 2007 assembly polls. Narendra Modi and BJP should be reasonably worried about the partys prospects in Saurashtra this time because of the presence of GPP and Keshubhai Patel. For instance, take the case of Bhavnagar district (in the above maps), where BJP had swept the polls in the 2007 assembly elections but had to share the spoils in 2009 because of the presence of Gordhanbhai Zadafia as an MJP candidate he cornered almost 30% of the votes in the Bhavnagar LS polls. This time, in Bhavnagar area there is not only GPP to contend with, but also Kanubhai Kalsarias Sadbhavana Manch, both of which can potentially dent BJPs voteshare. Despite a poor performance in the LS polls, BJP was still ahead in 106 assembly segments (to the Congress lead positions of 76) even in the 2009 elections. In more than 30 years, since 1991, the only time BJP had been leading in less than a 100 seats (in both LS as well as assembly polls) was in 2004. Only a repeat of that 2004 LS performance by the Congress party can bring it any closer to power.

LS Polls v/s Assembly polls LS Polls

61.54%

Assembly Polls

59.77% 47.92%

45.60%

2004 (2002)

2009 (2007)

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] Having said that the BJP should be weary of its performance in Saurashtra, it must be stressed that the voting behaviour of Gujaratis is distinctly different in assembly polls as compared to LS polls. The one clear visible feature of this difference in voting pattern is the 12 to 15% gap in turnouts between both the set of polls (as seen in the chart above). It seems as though the Gujarati voter has lesser incentive in turning out to vote for national polls vis--vis state elections. Also logical analysis suggests that it is the BJP voter who is less enthusiastic about Lok

Sabha elections than the Congress voter this aspect might change in the event of Narendra Modi being declared as the prime-ministerial candidate of the NDA/BJP.

Understanding the caste-calculus and voting patterns of the past polls

Congress
44.81% 39.59% 34.85% 39.05%

BJP
49.85% 49.12%

42.51% 32.86%

1995

1998

2002

2007

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] In each assembly election from 1995 onwards, BJP has maintained a 10% gap over its closest rival Congress A 10% gap over a 4 election-cycle is almost impossible to breach under normal electoral conditions in India Over the years as others and smaller parties started becoming irrelevant in the Gujarat electoral scene, the others vote started accruing to the two main players. In the Indian first-past-the-post electoral system having a 50% vote-share has a huge advantage in the electoral- arithmetic. Any increase of even 1% from the present base of close to 50% vote-share will give an exponential number of seats for the BJP, but a drop of even 2-3% of vote-share will only mean a marginal drop in the corresponding number of seats in the assembly This time, after a gap of almost 2 decades, there are a lot of others in the fray and that will have a huge bearing on the vote-share percentages of both the principal players.

Caste-Calculus

[Data Source: BJP internal database + leaked census data + CSDS + NES] Even though Gujarat as a state has evolved from being a purely caste-electoral-matrix into a development and progress oriented society, the caste & identity pull on the electoral outcomes cannot be completely ruled out. Thus it becomes important to understand and analyse the voting patterns of different subgroups of the Gujarati populace. There are again three major stumbling blocks in this process of understanding the caste-based voter preferences. 1. The exact percentage of any subgroup or caste community is not known and all we have are derivatives based on sample-sizes & voting patterns in certain caste-dominated areas. Although certain leaked 2011-census reports more-or-less correspond to our existing databases, one cannot vouch for the veracity or integrity of either the leaked census data points or the sources. 2. When the base (of the actual percentages of the population) itself is shaky, it is quite difficult to construct an edifice of voting pattern on that base. Yet, by mixing the sample data from past surveys and polling booth level voting patterns (where available) we are trying to build a reasonable edifice of caste-voting-matrix. 3. Even if certain caste groups have voted in a certain way in the past, there is no way to predict human behaviour with reasonable accuracy about their future voting patterns. This is where the pre-poll surveys come into picture, but that is for later.

[Data Source: BJP internal database + CSDS + NES + Polling booth data] The above chart represents collated data from two LS polls (2004 & 2009) and two assembly polls (2002 & 2007). The remaining vote-share percentage, if any; other than that of Congress & BJP; has gone to others. BJPs mainstay comes from Upper castes, Patels & OBCs, whereas Congress mainstay comes from SC, ST and Muslim votes. BJP has a larger pool of core vote base 65%, so it can afford to lose some of the voteshare and still manage to emerge victorious. Congress has a smaller pool of core vote base 35%, so it cannot afford to lose any voteshare if it wants to remain in contention Compared to LS polls with assembly polls, BJPs biggest drop in vote-share has come from two communities Patels & Kolis Compared to LS polls with assembly polls, Congress biggest gain in vote-share has been from three communities Patels, Thakors & other upper castes. Almost double the number of Muslims tend to vote for the BJP in assembly polls vis--vis LS polls, but that hasnt impacted the Congress Muslim vote-share much till now (it is the non-Congress Muslim vote that has been accruing to the BJP in assembly polls). Unlike other states, in Gujarat, voters tend to vote for others more in the LS polls than in assembly polls suggests a deeper sense of satisfaction with the state politics than the central politics.

 In the LS polls, the highest percentage of others vote-share is in the SC community 19% (the BSP factor?), whereas in assembly polls, the highest percentage of others vote-share is in the Patel community 15% In the LS polls, the lowest percentage of others vote-share is among the other upper castes, Thakors & STs 5% each, whereas in assembly polls, the lowest vote-share percentage for others is among the Kolis & other OBCs. This time the presence of stronger others in the electoral arena can potentially take a bigger chunk of the vote-share; the communities to be watched are Patels, Kolis & Muslim for their susceptibility to flux-voting.

The urban v/s rural divide

Metropolitan

City/Town

Village
60% 58%

53% 45% 43% 42% 45% 45%

52% 45%

40%

42% 35%

24% 18%

LS Polls

Assembly Polls
Congress

LS Polls

Assembly Polls
BJP Total Vote

[Data Source: BJP internal database + CSDS + NES + Polling booth data] The above chart represents collated data from two LS polls (2004 & 2009) and two assembly polls (2002 & 2007). The remaining vote-share percentage; other than that of Congress & BJP, if any; has gone to others. 42% of Gujarati voters can be considered as urban voters, which is quite high a percentage in the Indian electoral scenario

 Rural vote-share of both the parties has remained intact in both LS as well as assembly polls over the decade. Urban vote-share keeps fluctuating between state and national elections This time due to various reasons, including drought, the urban-rural divide is expected to be sharper and also potentially more anti-incumbent in nature

Assembly strongholds
There are basically 56 BJP stronghold seats where the party hasnt lost an election since two decades (i.e.) since 1995. Among those 56, there are 31 constituencies where BJP hasnt lost an election since 1990! Congress on the other hand has only 4-6 such stronghold seats in an assembly of 182. This kind of electoral strength is unheard of in the post emergency era of Indian elections.

Congress

BJP
74

56

31

13 4 6

1990

1995

1998

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] Seats not lost since 90, 95 & 98 For Congress to have any realistic chance of forming a government in Gandhinagar, the party has to win at least half of these BJP stronghold seats. Conversely, for the BJP it is much easier to once again emerge victorious in the Gujarat polls, because all it has to do is retain a majority of its stronghold constituencies and just try and win a couple of dozen more battleground seats.

Summary
Electoral map suggests that the BJPs spread in Gujarat is secular across all regions, whereas Congress has pockets of influence here and there Higher voter turnouts in assembly polls compared to LS polls seem to be favouring the BJP more than the Congress the plus vote goes to BJP In 20 years and 8 election cycles, only once has the BJP tally of assembly segment lead positions been less than 100 in the 2004 LS polls BJP has consistently maintained a whopping 10% gap in the assembly elections since 1995

 BJPs vote-share is almost touching the 50% mark, which is a significant achievement in terms of Indian electoral arithmetic BJP has a larger pool of (caste-community based) core-voters 65%, while Congress has a smaller pool of core-voters 35% Surprisingly, BJPs rural vote remains intact and more loyal to the party in both LS as well as assembly polls, whereas the urban vote-base of the BJP is more susceptible to a flux In the 2012 elections, the others vote percentage might play a crucial role in the electoral arena BJP has some 56 assembly segments where it has never lost an election since 1995, while Congress only has 6 such seats.

In the next part we will analyse the specific factors impacting Gujarat elections 2012.

PART 2: THE FACTORIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF GUJARAT 2012

This election analysis trilogy is dedicated to Offstumped (Shashi Shekhar), one of the finest political brains that the Indian right has produced in the digital era.

The weaker the data available upon which to base ones conclusion, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity. Norman Augustine

Most

of the past electoral data became redundant in Indian politics from 2008 onwards because of an exercise known as delimitation. This is the one single factor that has forced political parties, contesting candidates, psephologists and pundits to completely alter their electoral thinking. So much so that stalwart leaders had to change their geographical locations in order to survive the machinations of delimitation. For instance, just last month, the ghost of delimitation forced 2 of the tallest leaders of Himachal Pradesh to change their pocket boroughs and shift to totally new constituencies. Both Virbhadra Singh (5 times CM from the Congress party) and Prof Prem Kumar Dhumal (incumbent CM from the BJP) had to shift from their respective assembly seats. Gujarat too has had its share of delimitation woes. In fact, in a nutshell, it can be stated that Gujarat 2012 is an election of three Ds; Delimitation, Drought and Developmental politics. While drought should adversely affect the fortunes of the ruling BJP, developmental agenda should be pro-incumbent. That leaves us with the X-factor of delimitation, the impact of which is difficult to gauge at the outset.

The urban nature of Gujarat

We have already established in the part 1 of this series that about 42% of the Gujarati population lives in urban clusters of towns/cities & metropolitans. What is important in the 2012 context is the re-organization of this 42% population through the exercise of delimitation.

Pre-Delimitation

Post-Delimitation
135 113

32 22

37 25

Urban Seats

Semi-Urban Seats

Mostly Rural Seats

[Data Source: West-Zone Delimitation Commission, Election Commission of India] Today there are about 69 assembly segments, more than 1/3rd of the total assembly strength, where urban voters constitute 50% or more votes. Even among the remaining 113 assembly segments, at least 30 seats have significant amounts of urban areas within the boundaries (about 25%+ urban voters). Thus, essentially, in 99 assembly seats urban voters play a key role in deciding the winner. BJP has been consistently outperforming the Congress party in the urban assembly segments of the state, both in the assembly polls as well as in the LS polls. For instance, even in the previous 2009 LS polls, when the BJPs performance in the state was below-par and its urban vote-share had been dented (as demonstrated in part 1 of this series), yet, even then, BJP led in 49 of the 69 urban dominated assembly segments (post-delimitation). This performance of the BJP is likely to improve in the upcoming elections as the partys urban-vote tends to improve in the assembly election scenario (refer to part 1).

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] Apart from the urbanization impact, delimitation has also redrawn the boundaries of a majority of assembly segments. About 60 assembly segments have completely changed in nature, while at least another 80 have also been impacted in one way or the other.

Drought and the rural vote

Now that we have analysed the urban vote, it is time to take a closer look at the rural voters concerns. In the rural scenario, the other D, drought, is the biggest factor in Gujarat 2012 assembly elections. The impact of drought on electoral outcomes can never be underestimated in the Indian electoral context. In fact, except for the communists in West Bengal, no government has ever been re-elected in a drought year in Indian elections after emergency. This was a partial drought year in Gujarat for 3 main reasons; 1. Only certain geographical parts were affected by drought 2. Drought like situation was rescued by some late rains in August & September 3. Gujarat governments initiatives over the years have reduced the impact of drought on the rural agronomy Thus the impact of drought might not be as severe as in some other states in the past. Yet, worryingly for the BJP, the areas that bore the brunt of drought 2012 Saurashtra & North Gujarat happen to be the electoral strength areas of the ruling party. Till August this year, there were 10 districts which had up to 23% deficit rainfalls (i.e.) 10 districts had recorded rainfalls less than 150 mm till august, which happens to be the main sowing season. One way of gauging voter preferences in a drought year in Gujarat is by extrapolating assembly segment lead positions of parties in the 2004 LS polls when Gujarat (as rest of India) was just recovering from a spell of severe drought.

2004 LS polls, assembly segment leads

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] {Saurashtra & Kutch = Assembly seats of Kutch, Surendranagar, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Junagadh, Porbandar, Amreli, Bhavnagar and Dhanduka LS seats North Gujarat = Assembly seats of Mehsana, Patan, Banaskanta, Sabrakanta and parts of Kapadvanj LS seats Central Gujarat = Assembly seats of Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Anand, Kaira, Dohad, Godhra and parts of Kapadvanj LS seats South Gujarat = Assembly seats of Chota Udaipur, Baroda, Broach, Surat, Mandvi and Balsar LS seats} In the drought election of 2004, Congress was leading in 92 assembly segments, while BJP maintained pole-position in 89 assembly segments (JDU led in the 1 remaining segment). Congress best performance was in North & Central Gujarat and to some extent in Saurashtra, despite of the fact that the drought was spread across the state. Modis Achilles heel is drought This time the maximum impact of drought is seen in the North Gujarat and Saurashtra regions. There are a total of 72 assembly segments which have had some impact of drought or drought related difficulties this year. These assembly segments can be further classified as direct impact segments and peripheral impact assembly segments;

2007 votes in 49 Direct Impact seats

2324895 1947983

652814

Congress

BJP

Others

2007 votes in 23 peripheral impact seats

1374933
1103407

296622

Congress

BJP

Others

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] 1. Directly impacted assembly segments are constituencies that have borne the full impact of drought and are typically segments with large concentration of voters in the hinterland areas and very little urban areas 49 assembly seats in these 49 segments BJP has an overall lead of about 376912 votes or an average lead of 7700 votes in each assembly segment. Congress has won 14 of these seats, while BJP has won 35. 2. Peripherally impacted assembly segments are constituencies that are largely semiurban or urban assembly segments surrounding the drought impacted areas of a district or region 23 assembly seats in these 23 segments BJP has an overall lead of about 271526 votes or an average of 11800 votes in each assembly segment. Congress has won only 4 of these seats, while BJP has won 19. At least theoretically, BJP can be defeated in these 72 drought affected assembly segments and that is a definite worry for Modi. Typically in rural Gujarat, small and marginal farmers are majorly into dairy farming, thanks to AMUL, and especially during drought years most small farmers concentrate more on the milk economy and escape the brutal impact of drought. It is the medium and large farmer that bears the maximum brunt of drought in Gujarat.

Typically 70% of all medium and large farmers are from the Patidar or Patel community In Saurashtra an average of 25% of all voters are Patidars or Patels, whereas in North Gujarat, Patels constitute about 20% of the populace, thus giving us an average of 22% Patel voters in Saurashtra and North Gujarat. In the post-delimitation era, average electorate size of an assembly segment is about 1.6 to 1.8 lakhs. If an average 60% of voters turnout to vote on election day, then roughly 1 lakh voters would have exercised their franchise in each assembly segment. At 22% population share, an average of 20 to 22 thousand Patels should turn out to vote in each assembly seat of Saurashtra and North Gujarat. We have seen in part 1 that 52% to 70% of Patels vote for the BJP 52% in LS Polls and 70% in assembly polls. Even assuming that an average 65% of Patels in Saurashtra and North Gujarat have voted for the BJP, it means about 13000 to 14000 Patels have voted for BJP in each assembly seat in 2007 elections. Thus for an anti-incumbent impact of drought to have any realistic chance of succeeding, 50% to 80% of the BJPs Patel vote should shift away from it 7700 to 11800 votes in each of the 72 drought affected constituencies.

The presence of GPP along with drought could potentially achieve this micro-shift of vote-share away from BJP in Saurashtra and North Gujarat. But three aspects must be noted before reaching out to conclusions purely on the basis of drought-Patel-Vote paradigm; 1. There could be gains in the vote-share of the BJP in the non-Patel vote; mainly in Muslim and Koli votes (we will further analyse the Muslim vote separately in the next part). 2. The shifting away of Patel vote from the BJP might not accrue to the Congress and actually go to others 3. The shifting away of the drought-Patel vote could affect both Congress and BJP; there are 19 Congress seats among the drought impacted 72.

The Development vote for NaMO

The third D of the Gujarat triangle is the development vote, which has now become synonymous with the NaMO vote. But the NaMO vote is not purely a positive vote for the BJP, in fact, it is a combination of +ve and ve votes. For every vote in the Indian electoral system, there is a counter vote; for instance if a section of India votes for economic reforms, then there is a counter vote for that in the form of leftist/socialist anti-reforms vote, similarly if a section of voters still believe in voting for the Nehru-Gandhis, there is a counter vote that goes against the dynastic tendencies of Indian democracy. We must understand the balance between pro-NaMO vote and the anti-NaMO vote in order to understand the construct of the overall NaMO vote in Gujarat. So, first let us analyse the components of each of these counter votes.

35%

20%

20% 15% 6%

-15%

-8%

-6%

[Data Compilation based on past election performance + previous election surveys] Essentially 50% of the urban and 27% of the rural Hindu vote is pro-NaMO, cutting across caste-lines (Hindu vote = Upper castes + a section of Intermediate castes + OBCs). Thus a weightage of 35% The pro-reforms vote is essentially a Gujarati vote cutting across caste-religioncommunity lines that is of the business community which has hugely benefited by the 10 year NaMO rule. Weightage = 20% The Modi-cult vote is once again a unique demography that largely consists of women voters who turnout in droves to vote for BJP and Narendra Modi in election after election. Weightage = 20% Gujarat has historically been an anti-Congress state and has a traditional anti-Congress vote beyond the Hindu vote or the pro-reforms vote. Weightage = 15% Gujarati society has always been against minority appeasement and that also manifests as an independent vote-block which might waver a bit this time around due to Sadbhavana of Modi, that is why a weightage of 6% Minority vote is essentially anti-NaMO in nature and past voting patterns have suggested that 75% to 85% Muslims and minorities tend to vote against Modi in the state. Weightage 8% There is space for leftist, anti-liberalization vote in Gujarat, especially due to certain land acquisition policies and the resultant population displacements. This is the biggest antiNaMO vote block in Gujarat and essentially brings in disparate groups of people under one umbrella of the socialist vote. Weightage = 15% The Ant-MODI-cult vote is a new phenomenon that has developed over the last few years and consists of mostly former disgruntled BJP-ites and Hindutvawadis who are against personality cults. Weightage = 6%

[Data Source: CSDS + NES + BJP internal database + extrapolating data from Modi constituency, Maninagar] The above chart is further corroborated by approval ratings of Narendra Modi as the CM of Gujarat, which usually fall in the range between 65% to 85% in all the surveys and opinion

polls. Thus it can be safely assumed that 2 out of 3 Gujaratis easily endorse Narendra Modi, while 1 out of 3 are opposed to him. A 70% approval rating or a 65-70% NaMO vote does not linearly translate into actual voteshare in a non-presidential Westminster style representative democracy like India. There are local factors that have a much more important impact in deciding the winner or loser of an assembly constituency, so there is a need to quantify the NaMO vote of Gujarat in terms of assembly elections.

[Data Source: Approximations of CSDS + BJP internal database of 2002 & 2007 assembly polls] Essentially, about 75%-80% of the Gujarati voters tend to vote on local issues like Bijli, Sadak, Pani and the caste calculations of the contesting candidates and only about 18% to 20% of the voters (overall) tend to vote on general issues. Thus, in effect, the NaMO vote is derived from this 20% vote in an assembly election. If X = Pro-NaMO vote, then anti NaMO vote = X/3 Let us consider the lower limit of 18% voters voting in an assembly election on nonlocal factors Let us further deduct a 3% as margin of errors Thus general factors, Y = 15% of votes in each assembly election Let us extrapolate Y = X Now the NaMO-vote M = X-X/3 which is = 15-15/3 = 10% Thus NaMO-vote M = 10% in each assembly segment

Now Let us consider an example: In Bhavnagar rural assembly segment there are 2.2 lakh voters and if as a historical average 63% of the voters turn out to vote on December 13th, then essentially about 138000 voters would have voted in the assembly polls Extrapolating the above NaMO-vote equation, M = 13800

Thus, the BJP candidate starts the race with an advantage of 13800 votes, whereas the Congress candidate has to first secure 13800 votes over and above the votes that he may or may not accrue due to local factors In other words, all other factors being equal, BJP candidates should always win by a margin of 10% votes in each assembly election, whereas Congress candidates can only win where local factors are completely skewed against the ruling party. This also explains the 10% margin that BJP has maintained over Congress in the assembly elections, even if it means hitting the magical 50% vote-share since 2002 onwards.

The electoral impact of GPP and others

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] {1990 others vote-share of 35.24% is inclusive of Janata Dal votes; 2012 others vote-share of 18% is projected and not actual} Since 1998, Gujarat has essentially been a bipolar polity with BJP and Congress at the opposite poles For the first time since 1995 there are such a large number of contestants per constituency in Gujarat assembly elections more than 9 Historical evidence suggests that for every increase of 1 contestant there would be a commensurate increase of a minimum of 2% in the overall vote-share of others; therefore 18% projected vote-share of others in 2012 elections

In the last 2 assembly elections, the 2 principal players, BJP & Congress have been together securing about 90% of the total votes and any dramatic drop in that percentage can alter the electoral outcomes in a big way Presence of organized parties like GPP can corner a significant chunk of the votes in the upcoming elections even a 5-6% vote-share by the GPP can make a big dent in the no: of seats secured by a party, especially that of Congress Other than GPP, there are players like BSP, JDU, SP, Sadbhavana Manch and rebels & independents who can corner anywhere between 9 to 12% of the total vote-share

In order to understand the movement/flux of the vote from the principal players to the others, one must analyse the past vote-share data. Since the number of strong others is higher in Saurashtra than other regions of the state, let us consider the vote share data of some of the districts in Saurashtra.

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] Congress vote-share is more susceptible to a flux than the BJP vote-share in Saurashtra; in fact, it can almost be deduced that the Congress vote-share is inversely proportional to the vote-share of others BJP vote-share remains more-or-less intact, in other words, BJP vote-share is independent to the impact of the others vote-share up to reasonable levels. When the others vote-share remains in the range of 8% to 18%, BJP vote-share remains undisturbed, but once the vote-share goes beyond 20% as seen in the Bhavnagar LS polls, when Gordhanbhai Zadafia contested as an MJP candidate BJP also starts losing its vote-share Interestingly, even when the others vote-share is as high as 30%, BJP maintains a decent 4% gap over its nearest rival, Congress. If the projected others vote-share of 18% holds true in 2012, then it could potentially create a sweep/landslide like situation in favour of the BJP, because it is Congress that is likely to lose vote-share in the 18%-others-vote scenario, rather than the BJP

Impact of turnout on electoral outcomes

The last aspect in our understanding of Gujarat assembly elections 2012 is the turnout factor. Classically, in the Indian context, higher voter turnouts mean anti-incumbency and the increased chances of the ruling party being voted out. In the case of Gujarat, the reverse has been true almost always. BJPs performance has always been better when the turnouts are higher, whereas that of Congress are improved in low turnout elections. One primary reason for this unique Gujarati phenomenon is that the BJP voters tend to participate less at times (like in LS polls) due to either voter-political-fatigue or due to lesser incentives to vote, whereas BJP voters tend to vote in large numbers during assembly polls when they have a greater incentive to vote. The alternate theory is that the large Gujarati middle class (semi-urban/urban and even the rural) forms the core vote-base of the BJP/NaMO in Gujarat and when the middle class comes out to vote, it increases the overall turnout as well as BJPs vote-share.

Turnout
127

BJP leads/wins

Congress leads/wins

117 106 89 92 76 61.54% 51 45.61% 59.77% 59 47.92%

2002

2004

2007

2009

[Data Source: Election Commission of India] In the above chart it is quite clear that when the turnout goes below 50% it is advantage Congress and when it goes beyond 55% it is advantage BJP. Interestingly, even a change of 2% in turnout can make a difference of 10+ seats. A decrease of even 2% from around 48% turnout (between 2009 & 2004), meant a drop of 17 seats for the BJP. An increase in 2% turnout (between 2007 & 2002) meant commensurate increase in 10 assembly seats for the BJP. A similar inverse relationship with turnout percentages can be seen with the Congress performance in Gujarat.

Summary
The one big impact of delimitation is the increased number of urban/semi-urban seats from 47 to 69 which will have a positive impact on BJPs performance as 2/3 urban voters tend to vote for the party in assembly elections Drought is the only possible theoretic reason by which Modis BJP can be defeated in Gujarat, as 72 assembly seats fall into the drought-affected category There is at least a bare-minimum of 10% NaMO vote that BJP gets in each constituency of the state. Congress vote-share is inversely proportional to the others vote share, whereas BJPs is neutral Congress vote-share and performance is also inversely proportional to turnout, whereas BJPs vote-share & performance is directly proportional to turnout.

[In the next & concluding part, the final predictive model will be unveiled]

PART 3: THE PREDICTIVE MODEL

This election analysis trilogy is dedicated to Offstumped (Shashi Shekhar), one of the finest political brains that the Indian right has produced in the digital era.

Accordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities

Aristotle

Modern day democratic process has a unique feature associated with it, that of psephological
prophesising. Not only do we want voters to vote and elect their rulers/representatives but also we want to be able to predict the voters preference even before the vote is cast. In fact, many of the western democracies have such advanced psephological methodologies that at times it becomes difficult to distinguish between the actual votes and the exit-polls. India of course is still evolving its predictive techniques and still has a long way to go before achieving any degree of accuracy. The upcoming Gujarat assembly elections have already seen 5 major opinion poll surveys till date and quite a few other psephological calculations by arm-chair pundits, political analysts and electoral experts. Apart from these widely publicised surveys, there are at least half a dozen internal surveys conducted by various political parties. Going ahead, we are promised a host of exit-polls by various organizations in the next 2 days before the actual counting takes place on the 20th. Let us try and analyse the survey data and also extrapolate the past electoral data & factorial impact analysis of Gujarat 2012 on to the opinion poll surveys. All the 5 big boys of Indian psephology and market research have dipped themselves in the Gujarat elections of 2012, which in itself could be unprecedented for a state election. In the past so many players conducting a pre-poll survey was only for national elections; not even UP, the most populous state was given such importance; which only proves how seriously the establishments in Delhi have taken this particular Gujarat election.

Past performance of market-research firms the PPP index

In-order to analyse Gujarat elections of 2012, there are two important parameters about psephologists/market-researchers that needs to be looked at this is the past psephological performance index or the PPP index; total weightage = 60. Which can be further classified into specific performance Index and generic performance index.

1) A market research firms success/failure rate in the state of Gujarat: barometric choice 2002 and 2007 assembly elections of Gujarat {Weightage = 20}

[Data Source: Election Commission of India & Past opinion/exit-poll database of the author; all percentages have been rounded off & seats are means of projected ranges] {In 2002 AC-Nielson-ORG-MARG conducted a joint survey}

2) General past record of the market-research firm in Indian elections: barometric random choices 2009 general elections, 2012 UP assembly elections and 2008 Karnataka assembly elections first after delimitation came into vogue {Weightage = 25} A]

[Data Source: Election Commission of India & past opinion/exit-poll database of the author; all percentages have been rounded off & seats are means of projected ranges]

B]

[Data Source: Election Commission of India & past opinion/exit-poll database of the author; all percentages have been rounded off & seats are means of projected ranges] C]

[Data Source: Election Commission of India & past opinion/exit-poll database of the author; all percentages have been rounded off & seats are means of projected ranges]

Chronology of sample sizes and geographic spreads for Gujarat 2012 the triple SI {Weightage = 15}

[Data Source: Lens-on-News, CNN-IBN, ABP-News, India-Today, India TV] {*C-Voter has not published either the sample size or the no: of seats of the sample survey} The Sample, Spread & Samay (time-frame) Index Triple SI, awards 5 points each to the three aspects based on the latest polls, sample sizes and geographic spread of the pre-poll surveys conducted in Gujarat 2012.

Projected vote-shares for Gujarat 2012

50% 38%

Congress
50% 36% 38%

BJP
47%

Others
47% 40% 48% 38%

12%

14%

15%

13%

14%

[Data Source: Lens-On-News, CNN-IBN, ABP-News, India-Today & India TV] 1. The gap between the two principal players Congress & BJP is projected to be between 7% & 14% 2. At 7% gap, BJP is expected to retain its majority similar to that of 2007, whereas at 14% gap (as suggested by CSDS), BJP could potentially sweep the state, while Congress would be totally wiped out of the electoral map 3. Projected Congress vote-share never crosses beyond 40%, while that of BJP never goes below 47% 4. This time no pre-poll survey has suggested either a Congress victory or even a closecontest, which could mean a possible landslide for the BJP 5. The others vote-share is projected to be between 12%-15% - suggesting marginal impact of regional parties like GPP

The Factorial Impact Index for 2012 Gujarat

Apart from the pre-poll surveys, it is important to make an assessment of factors that impact a particular election in India. For instance, there are 5 major factors that have had a big impact on Gujarat assembly elections in 2012 and we need to quantify them in order to be able to predict the outcome (for a detailed analysis of these factors, please refer to part 2 of the Gujarat Electoral Calculus).

Total Weightage

BJP

Congress

10

10

10

8 7 5 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 7

High Turnout

Delimitation

Development

Drought

Other Parties

[Derived from Factorial impact analysis in part 2 of this series] High Turnout: has always been pro-BJP in the context of Gujarat elections, as we have clearly demonstrated in the previous two parts. The only qualifier being that the turnout has been unusually high in phase 1 (70.75%) more than 10% increase from the previous elections of 2007 and a whopping 23% increase from the 2009 LS polls. Arguably, at least half of this increase is due to correction of voter rolls (5%), so in reality the actual polling percentage in

comparison to 2007 could be around 65%. Yet, due to this unusually high turnout, BJP doesnt get full 10 points and instead shares 2 points with the Congress. Delimitation: Increased urbanization and re-organization has been extremely beneficial to the BJP, therefore a 80:20 score has been factored in (refer part 1 & 2) Development Vote: The NaMO factorial impact has been analysed in the previous part and a general 70:30 ratio is the widely accepted weightage for 2012 elections. Drought: The drought scenario also factors in the Patel vote and gives a big 30:70 advantage to the Congress party, especially in Saurashtra (refer part 2) Other Parties: Presence of other parties like the GPP should have, in the classical Indian electoral scene, been detrimental to the chances of the incumbent, but in Gujarat (especially Saurashtra) it is increasingly being seen as denting the anti-incumbency vote. Thus BJP and Congress share the honours and 1 point is allotted to the neutral field due to the unpredictable nature of the others vote-share.

MADE Modified Albatross Electoral Doppler

MADE is constituted by three different indices; the PPP Index Past Psephological Performance Index, the Triple SI Sample Spread & Samay Index and the FII Factorial Impact Index. While the PPP index & Triple SI get a combined weightage of 60%, the FII gets an independent weightage of 40%. The first two indices; PPP index & Triple SI; are primary indicators, whereas FII is used for secondary ratification of the trend.

MADE = (PPP + Triple SI) + FII Success rate of market research firms in Gujarat and India is 50% and less. AC-Nielsen has by far the best track-record with a success rate of about 53%, whereas CSDS & Lens-on-News have a success rate of 38% and 40% respectively. ORG has a success rate of 25%, while C-Voter has almost never been successful in predicting Indian elections. Thus C-Voter can be discarded for all practical purposes in analysing/predicting Gujarat 2012. The FII is going with the trend of the pre-poll survey data and has a positive score of 9 in favour of a BJP victory in Gujarat. Thus the FII enhances the scores of any pre-poll survey by 9 basis points if it is going along the trend-line. For instance, if an X poll survey is predicting a BJP victory in the elections, then the FII increases the possibility of success of X by a factor of 9. On the other hand if a Y poll survey is predicting a Congress victory, then FII reduces the possibility of success of Y by a factor of 9 (there are no anti-trend survey results published in the context of Gujarat assembly elections of 2012).

The three projected scenarios for 2012 Gujarat

52% Possibility 34% Possibility 14% Possibility

53%

44%

43%

49%

33% 13% 37% 14%

14%

BJP Congress Others

Scenario 1: The most likely scenario with a 52% possibility of success rate, projects 49% voteshare for the BJP and 37% vote-share for the Congress, maintaining a gap of 12%. Methodology: Mean success rate of the top 3 market research firms; AC-Nielsen + Lens-on-News + CSDS = 43% + FII score of +9 = 52% Mean of the projected BJP vote-share of the top three surveys = 49% Mean of the projected Congress vote-share of the top three surveys = 37%

Scenario 2: The extreme pro-trend scenario comes with a possibility quotient of 34% and
projects a BJP vote-share of 53%, while that of Congress is at 33%, maintaining a whopping gap of 20% Methodology: The lowest possible success rate of a market research firm in the trend-line is 25% (with an overall PPP + Triple SI score of 15/60), by adding the FII score of +9 = 34% +3% as error margin for the highest projected BJP vote-share = 53% extreme -3% as error margin for the lowest projected Congress vote-share = 33% extreme

Scenario 3: The extreme anti-trend scenario comes with a possibility quotient of the
remaining 14%. Where BJP vote-share is projected at 44%, while that of Congress is 43%, thus maintaining a miniscule gap of 1%. Methodology: The reverse of scenario 2.

Seat Projections for 2012 Gujarat

BJP+

Congress+
145

Others

130

95 80 45 30 7

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Converting vote-shares to seats is probably the most difficult task of an analyst/psephologist in the Indian electoral scenario. In the past we have seen many psephologists making huge errors in converting to seats the projected vote-shares. For instance, Yogendra Yadav who is widely touted to have predicted the UP assembly elections of 2012 accurately was in reality way off the mark. His vote-share projection for the Samajwadis was 34% - a whopping 5% points above the actual vote-share, which when converted to seats could have potentially added another 60 seats to the SP tally, taking its total close to 300! Thus instead of relying on the methodologies of other market research firms, we have formulated our own seat projections based on various parameters; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The vote-share gap between the principal players Micro-analysis of different districts and assembly seats Winability criteria of Congress v/s BJP candidates Over-all caste matrix (as demonstrated in part 1) Impact of others in close fights Co-relation between high turnout and assembly seat victories

Epilogue: Is a BJP defeat in Gujarat a statistical impossibility? That seems to be the general
consensus among all pollsters/psephologists/market research firms. The reasons for this unassailable lead by the BJP are many, and all of them have been elucidated in the first 2 parts of the GEC series. Let us look at some contrarian findings as a guide for the future. An exit-poll conducted in Gujarat by a non-profit trust, as a pre-cursor for the next general elections did come up with some startling results in rural Saurashtra, where Congress was shown to be literally sweeping many constituencies. In 22 polling booths of rural Saurashtra, there was almost a 70:30 vote-share division in favour of the Congress (while GPP was almost non-existent in many areas). Although, this exercise was of only academic interest with a

potential to guide future policy decisions of Indian right, targeted towards rural areas, it was revealing enough to the extent that it almost corroborated the socialist theory of doles winning elections in rural India. There are 5 important pointers for the future of BJP/Indian right in the rural political landscape; 1. The capacity of NREGS/DCT/FSB and loan-waiver type dole-schemes in winning electoral battles should never be under-estimated and a creative socialistic policy narrative should be initiated at least 1 year/6 months before the next general elections competitive populism should never be ruled out purely from an electoral stand point 2. Agrarian issues must be addressed aggressively, even if it means adhering to populism. For instance, the MSP for cotton in Saurashtra is about 850 Rs, whereas input costs during a drought year could be as high as 700 to 750 Rs which is extremely dis-heartening for a farmer who has invested 6 to 9 months of his time in growing cotton

3. Rural caste-divisions, especially, the middle castes who are in leadership positions in rural areas should always be given importance Patels in Gujarat, Lingayats in Karnataka, certain OBCs like Yadavs/Kurmis/Lodhs in the heartland etc. for their capacity to electorally hurt BJP is immense. 4. A far-right electoral entity (like GPP in Gujarat) to capture disgruntled core-votes/antiincumbent votes is a failed experiment, due to its inability to gain traction unlike a leftwing entity like Chiranjeevis PRP in AP all the more reason to discourage a KJP in Karnataka. 5. Although rural voters have a longer memory than their urban counterparts, they can be easily swayed by immediate economic conditions like drought, inability to get proper price for their hard work or doles and incentives targeted short-term policy initiatives/schemes can go a long way in winning votes.