West Bengal 2016 Assembly Election Analysis

West Bengal 2016 Assembly Election Analysis

West Bengal 2016 Assembly Election Analysis Assignment 1: Conduct Opinion Polls for West Bengal Assembly Elections 2020 Assignment 2: Summarize and Present 2016 West Bengal Assembly Elections Results Spotle.ai Submitted by: Siddhant Pansare Introduction: Behind Mamata Banerjee’s decisive and impressive victory in the 2016 West Bengal assembly elections is the second highest vote share registered in the state by Trinamool Congress – 44.9%, against 49.1% for the Congress in 1972. Banerjee ruled for a second term with the second largest majority of seats ever obtained by a single party or coalition – 71.77%, against 77.14% for the Congress in 1972. Trinamool Congress put up a stunning victory in West Bengal winning 211 of the 294 seats, bettering its 2011 tally of 184 seats. Out of the 294 seats, Congress-Left combine got 76 seats. TMC had secured 184 seats in 2011 Assembly election when it had fought in alliance with Congress. The Congress-Left combine did not make much headway despite prediction by political pundits. Congress, however, did better than its Left partners securing 44 seats. Left partners CPI-M bagged 26 seats, RSP-3, CPI-1 and Forward Bloc-2. Vote Share: The combined vote share of the Left Front was also reduced to nearly 24 per cent from 41 per cent in 2011. The Left Front had won 62 seats in 2011 Assembly poll, of which CPI(M) had won 40 seats. Congress, however, bettered its vote percentage this time to 12.3 compared to 8.91 per cent in 2011 when it had contested in alliance with TMC. In 2014 Lok Sabha poll, Congress’s vote share in the state was 9.6 per cent. BJP, on the other hand, increased its vote percentage to 10.2 compared 4.06 per cent secured in 2011 Assembly election and managed to capture three seats. The Trinamool contested on its own this time, unlike in 2011 when it contested in alliance with the Congress. Because it contested more seats this time, Trinamool increased its overall vote share significantly – from 38.9% to 44.9%. This is the second highest score registered in West Bengal since Independence. But in terms of vote shares in the seats contested, the Trinamool tally of 44.9% of the votes is less than in 2011, when it bagged a majority of the votes – 50.15% – in the 226 seats it contested. The Congress bagged an average of 40.1% of the vote share in the seats it contested, 2.5% less than in 2011, when it contested 66 seats, in an alliance with the Trinamool. Despite contesting in 34 more seats than in 2011, it only increased its overall vote share by 3%. Therefore, any claim that the Congress has somewhat progressed in West Bengal should be taken with a pinch of salt. Its seat share marginally increased, from 13.6% to 15% (plus two seats) and its performance depended on the goodwill of its partners and their supporters. The main loser of this election is the CPI(M), which lost a third of its voters, compared to 2011. The mainstream communist party is back to where it was in 1969. The loss is all the more humiliating that it contested in an alliance with the Congress. Survey data would be required to see whether Congress voters stayed away from communist candidates, but the partnership clearly did little to attenuate the CPI(M)’s woes. As a result, the CPI(M) is now the third party in terms of seats, behind Congress. The CPI(M) received 38.4% of the votes in the seats it contested – less than its partner. In all, the CPI(M)-Congress combine received 17.5 million votes, while the Trinamool received close to 25.6 million votes. The BJP increased its vote share from 4% to 10.2%, which incidentally is not its best performance in West Bengal. The saffron party had won 11.3% of vote share in the 1991 assembly elections. Since it contested in all the seats – 292 out of 294 – its vote share in seats contested remains roughly the same at 10.4%. In the 14 assembly segments of Kolkata, the lotus party got only 2.75 lakhs votes, that is 13% of the city’s vote share. The Trinamool’s victory is comprehensive as it covers the entirety of the state. It’s vote share is weaker in Maldah and Murshidabad districts, where the Congress retains a good presence, and in Darjeeling and in parts of Bankura districts. Otherwise, the party emerges victorious everywhere else. Its vote share tended to be higher in rural areas, a sign that it has – almost – completely replaced the Left as the "provider party" for the rural poor. The CPI(M) retains an all-state presence, even if it is receding. This means that his vote share gets diluted over a large number of seats, which explains its poor conversion rate of votes into seats (26 seats for 19.75% vote share). The party has lost all its stronghold and is a second or third figure in every district. The following map shows the spatial distribution of winners. It confirms that the Congress maintains two strongholds in Maldah and Murshidabad, that the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha has proved to be a successor to the Gorkha National Liberation Front in Darjeeling, and that the Left is a scattered force. The Contenders: In 2016, there were a total of 56 parties, with 1,961 individuals contesting either as party or independent candidates – 68% of these candidates lost their deposit and only nine parties made it to the Vidhan Sabha. Small parties can have a spoiler effect when they cut across the vote base of major parties. That did not happen in these elections as voters concentrated on the main contenders. The Trinamool and the Left-Congress alliance together nearly 81% of the total vote share. The BJP got 10.2% of the votes and the rest was split among 50-odd parties and independent candidates. The average margin separating the runner-up from the third candidate is above 49,000 votes, which is another indicator that these elections were a bipolar fight. The 2016 state elections have generally confirmed the trend that voters tend to vote more and more for major players and aren’t willing to "waste" their vote with small parties for the sake of making a statement or to support a small party on the bases of a narrow identity criteria. + Table showing results for all the Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) Constituencies of West Bengal with the names of winner and runner-up candidates. Also shown along are their party names. Runner- Winner (Party # Constituency Up(Party Affiliated) Affiliated) Paresh Arghya Roy Chandra 1 Mekliganj Pradhan (AITC) Adhikary (AIFB) Khagen Binay Krishna Chandra 2 Mathabhanga Barman(AITC) Barman (CPI(M)) Nagendra Parimal Cooch Behar 3 Nath Barman Uttar Roy(AIFB) (AITC) Mihir Cooch Behar Debasis Banik 4 Goswami(AITC Dakshin (AIFB) ) Namadipti Hiten 5 Sitalkuchi Adhikary Barman(AITC) (CPI-M) Keshab Jagadish 6 Sitai Chandra Ray Chandra (INC) Barma Basunia (AITC) Udayan Akshay Thakur 7 Dinhata Guha(AITC) (AIFB) Rabindra Nath Tamser Ali 8 Natabari Ghosh(AITC) (CPI-M) Shyamal Fazal Karim 9 Tufanganj Choudhury Miah(AITC) (INC) James Kujur Manoj Kumar 10 Kumargram (AITC) Oraon(RSP) Wilson Bishal Lama 11 Kalchini Champramary (BJP) (AITC) Sourav Chakraborty Biswa Ranjan 12 Alipurduars (Ghutish) Sarkar (INC ) (AITC) Kshitish Anil Adhikari 13 Falakata Chandra Ray (AITC) (CPM ) Manoj Tigga Padam Lama 14 Madarihat (BJP) (AITC ) Mitali Roy Mamata Roy 15 Dhupguri (AITC) (CPM ) Ananta Deb Chhaya Dey 16 Maynaguri Adhikari (AITC) (Roy) (RSP ) Sukhbilas Dharttimohan 17 Jalpaiguri Barma (INC) Roy (AITC ) Satyendra Khageswar 18 Rajganj Nath Mondal Roy (AITC) (CPM ) Dabgram- Goutam Deb Dilip Singh 19 Phulbari (AITC) (CPM ) Augustus Bulu Chik 20 Mal Kerketta (CPM Baraik (AITC) ) Sukra Munda Joseph Munda 21 Nagrakata (AITC) (INC ) Sarita Rai Harka Bahadur 22 Kalimpong (GJM) Chettri (IND ) Amar Singh Sarda Rai 23 Darjeeling Rai (GJM) Subba (AITC ) Rohit Shanta Chhetri 24 Kurseong Sharma(GJM) (AITC ) Matigara- Sankar Amar Sinha 25 Naxalbari Malakar (INC) (AITC ) Asok Bhaichung 26 Siliguri Bhattacharya Bhutia (AITC ) (CPM) Sunil Chandra Carolus Lakra 27 Phansidewa Tirkey (INC) (AITC ) Hamidul Akramul 28 Chopra Rahaman Hoque (CPM ) (AITC) Abdul Karim Kanaia Lal 29 Islampur Chowdhury Agarwal (INC) (AITC ) Md Gulam Afjal Hosen 30 Goalpokhar Rabbani (AITC (INC ) ) Ali Imran Ashim Kumar 31 Chakulia Ramz (AIFB) Mridha (BJP ) Manodeb Gokul Roy 32 Karandighi Sinha (AITC) (AIFB ) Debendra Sabita Kshetry 33 Hemtabad Nath Roy (AITC ) (CPM) Pramatha Basanta Roy 34 Kaliaganj Nath Ray (INC) (AITC ) Mohit Purnendu Dey 35 Raiganj Sengupta (INC) (Bablu) (AITC ) Srikumar Amal Acharjee 36 Itahar Mukherjee (AITC) (CPI ) Narmada Rekha Roy 37 Kushmandi Chandra Roy (AITC ) (RSP) Toraf Hossain Mafuja Khatun 38 Kumarganj Mandal (AITC) (CPM ) Biswanath Shankar 39 Balurghat Choudhury Chakravorti (RSP) (AITC ) Bachchu Raghu Urow 40 Tapan Hansda (AITC) (RSP ) Satyendra Goutam Das 41 Gangarampur Nath Roy (INC) (AITC ) Rafikul Islam Biplab Mitra 42 Harirampur (CPM) (AITC ) Khagen Amal Kisku 43 Habibpur Murmu(CPM) (AITC ) Dipali Biswas Sushil Chandra 44 Gazole (CPM) Roy (AITC ) Asif Mehbub Soumitra 45 Chanchal (INC) Ray(AITC ) Alam Harishchandra Tajmul 46 Mostaque pur Hossain (AITC ) (INC) Alberuni Abdur Rahim 47 Malatipur Zulkarnain Boxi (RSP ) (INC) Samar Shehnaz 48 Ratua Mukherjee Quadery (AITC (INC) ) Md. Mottakin Sabitri Mitra 49 Manikchak Alam (INC) (AITC ) Bhupendra Dulal Sarkar 50 Maldaha Nath Halder (Babla) (AITC ) (INC) Krishnendu Nihar Ranjan Narayan 51 English Bazar Ghosh (IND) Choudhury (AITC ) Yeasmin Md. Najrul 52 Mothabari Sabina (INC) Islam (AITC ) Abu Nasar Isha Khan Khan 53 Sujapur Choudhury Choudhury (INC) (AITC ) Swadhin Azizul Haque 54 Baisnabnagar Kumar Sarkar (INC ) (BJP) Mainul Haque Md.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    22 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us