ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Third Assembly Elections in Uttarakhand

Third Assembly Elections in Uttarakhand

seats since the previous election. How- Third Assembly Elections Uever in terms of vote share, both the parties ended up adding votes. The in Uttarakhand Congress

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

seats since the previous election. How-

Third Assembly Elections

U
ever in terms of vote share, both the parties ended up adding votes. The in Uttarakhand Congress’ vote share went up by 4 percentage points compared to 2007, and the BJP’s increased by 1%. The difference ttarakhand witnessed a single and the BJP finished a close second with in vote shares between the Congress day poll to elect the third assem-31 seats. While the Congress gained 11 (33.79%) and the runner-up, BJP (33.13%) bly in the state on 30 January seats compared to 2007, the BJP lost four is just 27,701 votes, less than 1% of the 2012. A record 67% of a total of 63,78,293

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties, registered voters turned out to vote, the Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

highest ever and up by nearly 7 percent-Seats Seats Gain/Loss of Vote Share Vote % Per Seat Vote Swing Contested Won Seats since 2007 (%) Contested since 2007

age points since the last assembly elec- (% Points)

tion. The turnout among women voters Indian National Congress (INC) 70 32 +11 33.79 33.79 +3.90

at nearly 69% was 3 percentage points higher than the turnout among men, and 9 percentage points higher than the women’s turnout in 2007. The number of contestants also went up marginally to 788 from 787 in the previous elections

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 70 31 -4 33.13 33.13 +0.87

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) 70 3 -5 12.19 12.19 +0.63

Samajwadi Party (SP) 45 0 0 1.41 1.94 -3.46

Uttarakhand Raksha Morcha (URM) 42 0 0 1.90 3.22 +1.90

Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (Panwar) (UKD(P)) 44 1 -2 1.93 3.18 -3.47

Communist Party of India (CPI) 5 0 0 0.21 3.00 -0.02

Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M) 6 0 0 0.27 3.14 +0.02

(Table 1 A). Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) 20 0 0 0.20 0.67 -1.44

Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation: Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

Assembly Change from
Election 2012 2007 (%)
Total electorate 63,78,293 +4.9
Male electorate 33,53,612 +8.5
Female electorate 30,24,680 +1.1
Other electorate 1 -
Total voters 42,50,314 +10.4
Total turnout 66.6% +7.2
Male turnout 65.7% +6.5
Female turnout 68.8% +9.1
Number of candidates 788 +0.1

For electorate, voters and candidates the change is in %, with 2007 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in

Others 155 0 0 2.62 - -0.66
Independents 261 3 0 12.35 - +1.73
Total 788 70 0 100 - 0
  • (1) “Others” in 2012 include All India Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal (United), Shiv Sena, Janata Dal (Secular), Lok Janshakti Party, Peace Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal and other parties. “Others” in 2007 included Janata Dal (United), Shiv Sena, Janata Dal (Secular), Lok Janshakti Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Forward Bloc, Republican Party of India and other parties.
  • (2) UKD split into UKD (Panwar) and UKD (Diwakar) before the 2012 assembly elections. Candidates of UKD (Diwakar) contested elections on the BJP symbol. The gain/loss of votes and seats for UKD (Panwar) takes into account the total votes and seats secured by the united UKD in 2007. Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website http://eciresults.ap.nic. in/; accessed on 9 March 2012. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.
  • Table 2A: Region-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties in the Assembly Election (2012)

    Regions Total Turnout Congress BJP UKD (P) SP BSP Independents Others

    Seats (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote(%)
    Garhwal 22 61.2 12 34.2 7 32.0 1 3.0 0 0.3 0 2.9 2 17.8 0 9.8
    Kumaon 20 61.5 11 37.1 8 34.1 0 3.9 0 1.7 0 10.8 1 10.4 0 2.1
    Maidan 28 73.0 9 31.9 16 33.3 0 0.4 0 1.9 3 17.6 0 10.5 0 4.5
    Total 70 66.6 32 33.8 31 33.1 1 1.9 0 1.4 3 12.2 3 12.3 0 5.2

    percentage points, compared to turnout in 2007. Source: Figures available from the official website of chief electoral officer, Uttarakhand, http://ceo.uk.gov. in/; accessed on 9 March 2012; Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.

    The main contest in this election was between the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC/Congress). Other key players in the electoral race were the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Samajwadi Party (SP), the newly formed Uttarakhand Raksha Morcha (URM) and the Uttarakhand Kranti Dal-Panwar (UKD(P)), a breakaway faction of the erstwhile UKD.

  • (1) “Others” in this table and in Tables 2B, 2C and 2D include other smaller parties.
  • (2) Garhwal region includes all the seats in the districts of Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal, Garhwal and two seats of Dehradun district; Kumaon region includes all the seats in the districts of Pithoragarh, Bageshwar, Almora, Champawat and Nainital; Maidan region includes all the seats in the districts of Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar and eight seats of Dehradun district (see Table 2B). Source: As in Table 1B.
  • Table 2B: District-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties in the Assembly Election (2012)
    Districts Total Turnout Congress BJP UKD (P) SP BSP Independents Others
    Seats (%) Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote
    (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
    Uttarkashi 3 72.9 1 31.7 1 30.9 1 11.8 0 0.0 0 2.6 0 20.6 0 2.4
    Chamoli 3 60.4 3 31.9 0 23.2 0 0.9 0 0.6 0 2.1 0 28.0 0 13.4
    Rudryaprayag 2 61.7 2 35.5 0 31.9 0 0.9 0 0.7 0 3.3 0 14.9 0 12.8
    Tehri Garhwal 6 58.6 2 28.6 2 35.0 0 3.1 0 0.1 0 2.9 2 27.1 0 3.3
    Dehradun 10 66.8 5 37.9 5 34.4 0 0.5 0 1.2 0 5.2 0 13.1 0 7.8
    Haridwar 11 75.2 3 29.2 5 28.6 0 0.1 0 0.7 3 25.8 0 9.1 0 6.4
    The UKD(P) contested in alliance with Garhwal 6 56.9 3 38.5 3 38.3 0 1.7 0 0.0 0 3.8 0 7.7 0 9.9
    the left parties, namely, the Communist Pithoragarh 4 61.1 3 42.9 1 34.9 0 4.2 0 0.0 0 9.4 0 4.2 0 4.5
    Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Bageshwar 2 60.4 1 39.3 1 39.8 0 2.9 0 0.5 0 10.6 0 5.2 0 1.7
    Party of the India (Marxist) – CPI(M). The final outcome of the election was a photo finish both in terms of seats and votes. The Congress emerged as the Almora 6 Champawat 2 Nainital 6 Udham Singh Nagar 9 Total 70 55.2 60.4 67.7 76.7 66.6 3 1 3 2 32 34.238.635.230.4 33.8 3 1 2 7 31 35.838.429.835.8 33.1 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 2.0 1.8 0.5 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 4.2 3.6 1.4 0 0 0 0 3 8.5 15.3 11.8 17.9 12.2 0 0 1 0 3 10.9 5.1 15.9 9.4 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0.2 1.3 2.4 5.2
    single largest party winning 32 seats Source: As in Table 1B.
    76 april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14 Economic & Political Weekly
    EPW

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    total votes polled in the state. Never but managed to win only three seats, before has Uttarakhand witnessed as down five since 2007. Independents slender a margin in terms of votes. The won three seats and UKD (P) won one BSP also increased its vote share by 1% seat, holding the key to government

    Table 2C: Category-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Parties by Reserved and General Constituencies in the Assembly Election (2012)

    Category Total Turnout Congress BJP UKD (P) SP BSP Independents Others Seats (%) Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

    formation in a situation where both the Congress and BJP had fallen short of a majority (Table 1B, p 76).

    This election witnessed a signifi cant change in the pattern of voting in two of the three regions of the state, namely, Garhwal with 22 seats and Kumaon with 20 seats. In both these regions, the

    Reserved (SC) 13 64.7 6 36.7 5 33.1 0 0.8 0 0.8 2 16.3 0 8.1 0 4.2 Congress ended up winning more seats

    Reserved (ST) 2 74.4 1 41.0 1 21.6 0 1.2 0 3.8 0 8.0 0 2.0 0 22.5 (12 and 11 respectively) and votes than

    General 55 66.8 25 32.8 25 33.6 1 2.2 0 1.5 1 11.4 3 13.7 0 4.7 the BJP. In 2007, it was the BJP which

    Total 70 66.6 32 33.8 31 33.1 1 1.9 0 1.4 3 12.2 3 12.3 0 5.2

    Source: As in Table 1B.
    Table 2D: Locality-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties
    by Rural-Urban Nature of Constituency in the Assembly Election (2012)
    Locality Total Turnout Congress BJP UKD (P) SP BSP Independents Others
    Seats (%) Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote Won Vote
    (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
    Rural 45 66.0 18 30.9 22 31.8 1 2.9 0 1.1 2 12.5 2 14.9 0 5.8
    Semi-urban 19 68.7 11 36.8 6 33.3 0 0.6 0 1.3 1 13.6 1 9.5 0 4.8

    had finished on top in these regions. The Congress performed particularly well in Rudraprayag and Chamoli districts of Garhwal, and Pithoragarh district of Kumaon. In the third region, that is, Maidan, which has the highest number of seats (28) post-delimitation, the BJP retained its 2007 dominance over the

    Urban 6 64.4 3 41.6 3 40.6 0 0.3 0 3.6 0 6.0 0 5.4 0 2.5

    Congress winning 16 seats. The decline

    Total 70 66.6 32 33.8 31 33.1 1 1.9 0 1.4 3 12.2 3 12.3 0 5.2

    of the SP, and the BSP, which lost fi ve

    Rural constituencies are those where less than 25% electors live in urban areas. Semi-urban constituencies are those where

    seats in this region compared to 2007,

    25% and more but less than 75% of electors live in urban areas. Urban constituencies are those where 75% or more electors live in urban areas. The classification of constituencies is based on Census 2001 and description of constituency boundary seems to have benefi ted the BJP more provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002 read with the urban/rural location indicated on the top sheet of electoral

    than the Congress. The BJP’s perform

    rolls for each polling booth area. Computation and classification has been done by the CSDS data unit. Source: As in Table 1B. ance was particularly impressive in the

    Table 3A: Social Basis of Voting: Survey-Based Estimates of Vote for Major Parties by Gender, Age, Education, Locality, Class and Caste/Community in the Assembly Elections (2007 and 2012)

    Congress BJP BSP Others N for Congress BJP BSP Others N for
    2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2012
    Age groups Class
    Up to 25 yrs 27 37 32 31 11 13 30 19 264 Upper NA 41 NA 27 NA 9 NA 23 256
    26-35 yrs 31 32 31 38 12 8 26 22 454 Middle NA 31 NA 33 NA 16 NA 19 471
    36-45 yrs 31 33 34 31 12 16 24 21 337 Lower NA 35 NA 34 NA 12 NA 20 554
    46-55 yrs 34 33 33 36 11 10 23 21 225 Poor NA 29 NA 38 NA 10 NA 23 248
    56 years and above Gender 29 35 34 28 12 15 25 22 250 Caste community
    Men 30 35 32 33 11 13 28 20 849 Brahmin 29 19 44 48 3 6 24 27 211
    Women 30 32 34 34 13 12 23 22 680 Rajput 32 29 36 45 4 6 29 19 529
    Level of education Other upper castes 28 22 53 28 4 7 15 43 117
    Non-literate 25 36 18 25 24 17 33 22 344 OBC Hindu 19 41 30 32 16 15 35 11 182
    Up to primary 30 37 30 33 14 6 26 25 220 Hindu dalit 27 33 12 18 43 36 19 14 181
    Up to matric 29 35 34 33 13 13 25 19 419 Hindu adivasi 45 33 20 8 16 42 19 17 24*
    College and above Locality 32 30 37 38 5 12 26 20 547 Muslim 29 63 12 9 19 11 40 16 175
    Rural 27 31 31 32 15 14 27 24 1,199 Sikh 37 54 45 24 4 0 15 22 37*
    Urban 37 45 36 38 4 6 23 11 329 Others 30 31 37 19 12 14 21 37 74
  • (1) All figures except ‘N’ are in % and rounded off.
  • (2) ‘N’ stands for sample size for the relevant row. In some cases the sample size is too small and figures indicated with * need to be read with caution.
  • (3) Educational categories: are defined as follows. Non-literate: A person who can neither read nor write in any language. Up to primary: It includes the persons who received formal schooling; either completed the whole primary cycle (I-V) or completed one or other grades of it. Up to matric: It includes persons ranging from those who received schooling beyond the primary cycle to those who actually completed the 10th standard. College and above: It includes persons who went to college but could not receive a degree and those who completed five years of education in college and persons who received education beyond graduation either in general education or in specialised streams/courses.
  • (4) The class scheme used here takes into account two elements of material wealth – durable household assets and monthly household income. Upper are those who had a car/jeep/ tractor or colour TV, scooter, telephone, fridge, air conditioner, pumping sets (rural) and LPG (rural), or whose monthly household income was above Rs 20,000. Middle class respondents are those who had any three out of four assets such as telephone, colour TV, scooter/motor cycle and fridge in their households or whose monthly household income was above Rs 5,000 and up to Rs 20,000. Lower class respondents are those who had any three out of four assets such as B/W TV, electric fan, bicycle and LPG in their households or whose monthly household income was above Rs 2,000 and up to Rs 5,000. Poor are those who had no more than two out of the household assets or whose monthly household income was Rs 2,000 and less.
  • (5) Since the analysis uses data-file weighted by actual vote shares, it holds on the assumption that any discrepancy between the reported vote in the post-poll survey and the actual vote share is evenly distributed across all the social groups.
  • (6) “Others” in this table (column) include other smaller parties and independents.
  • (7) NA means not available. Source: All figures are based on post-poll/exit poll surveys carried out by CSDS in 2007 and 2012. Total sample size in 2007 was 3,171. Total sample size in 2012 was 1,680; In these surveys the respondents were asked to indicate who they voted for by using a ballot paper that carried the list of candidates, their party names and symbols as on the EVM in their constituency. Figures reported here are for respondents who said they voted. The investigators checked if these respondents carried a mark on their finger. Those without a finger mark have been excluded from this analysis. The raw survey figures were weighed by actual vote share obtained by major alliances/parties in the final results.
  • Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    Udham Singh Nagar district where the party won seven of the nine seats on offer. This was also the district which saw the highest turnout in the state at 77% (Tables 2A and 2B, p 76).

    The contest between the Congress and BJP was closely fought in both the general and reserved SC seats, with the Congress taking a marginal lead over the BJP in the latter category. However, the BJP was not able to retain the edge it had over the Congress in both these

    Table 4A: Level of Satisfaction with the Incumbent Government (2007 and 2012)

    Satisfaction with 2007 Congress 2012 BJP N in 2012
    Government Government Government
    Satisfied with
    performance 61 58 977
    Dissatisfied with
    performance 30 27 451
    No opinion 10 15 251
  • (1) All figures except ‘N’ in % and rounded off.
  • (2) ‘N’ stands for sample size for the relevant row.
  • (3) Question asked in surveys- What is your assessment of the work done by the Congress/BJP government in Uttarakhand during the last five years? Would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with it? (Probe further whether “fully” or “somewhat” satisfied or dissatisfied). Categories of “Fully satisfied” and “Somewhat satisfied” have been merged together as “Satisfied”; categories of “Fully dissatisfied” and “Somewhat dissatisfied” have been merged together as “Dissatisfied”. Source: Figures are based on post-poll/pre-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties. Total sample in 2007 was 1,379.
  • Table 4B: Comparison of BJP Government (2007-12) and Congress Government (2002-07)

    in Uttarakhand
    Comparing Governments
    BJP govt better than previous Cong govt 29
    Previous Cong govt better than BJP govt 28
    Both equally good/bad 20
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: If we compare the present BJP government (2007-12) with the previous Congress government (2002-07), then in your opinion which government has been better? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.
  • categories in 2007. The BSP which had won five general seats in 2007 managed to win only one this time (Table 2C, p 77).

    The BJP enjoyed a signifi cant lead over the Congress in the almost entirely rural constituencies, while the Congress did better than the BJP in the semi-urban constituencies. The contest between both the parties was close in the almost entirely urban constituencies (Table 2D, p 77).

    Post-poll survey-based estimates of vote by social background reveal that the BJP’s performance among its traditional voters, brahmins and Rajputs improved further compared to 2007. The party however dropped by a huge 25 percentage points among other upper castes which include Jat Hindus, Bhumihars, Kayasthas and Punjabi Khatris. The Congress however did not benefi t from BJP’s decline here. Compared to BJP’s gains among brahmins and Rajputs, the Congress’ gains among other communities, particularly Muslims and Hindu OBCs were equally big. The party gained by a massive 34 percentage points among Muslims and by 22 percentage points among Hindu OBCs. Both the BJP and the Congress also made huge gains among dalits, largely at the expense of the BSP. The Congress also made signifi cant gains among the young 18-25 years (up 10 percentage points compared to 2007), among non-literates (up 11 percentage points), in urban seats (up 8 percentage points) and among men (up 5 percentage points). Much of these gains came from parties other than the BJP. Women favoured the BJP more than the Congress. The BJP also did well among the poor, while the Congress did well among the upper class (Table 3A, p 77).

    Table 4C: Citizen's Assessment of the Work Done by Government during Its Tenure for Various Public Goods and Services

    Assessment of Governance Issues… BJP Govt 2012 Congress Govt 2007
    Improved Remained Same Deteriorated Improved Remained Same Deteriorated
    Development of Uttarakhand 30 26 32 64 25 6
    Control of corruption 19 47 25 22 53 14
    Drinking water supply 42 22 32 47 37 11
    Electricity supply 55 18 25 54 29 11
    Medical facilities 32 30 32 38 40 15
    Educational facilities 42 22 30 58 26 10
    Condition of roads 42 29 26 57 24 14
    Security of common man 18 35 33 24 50 16

    The post-poll survey found that overall a majority of voters expressed a sense of satisfaction with the work done by the BJP government. However this does not seem to have swung the election in BJP’s favour, like it did not for the Congress five years ago. When a similar survey was conducted in 2007, most people had also expressed their satisfaction with the then Congress government, and yet it was voted out (Table 4A).

    When asked to compare the performance of the BJP government with that of the previous Congress government led by N D Tiwari, respondents were almost equally divided, with 29% opting for the BJP government and 28% choosing the Congress government (Table 4B). However, on most key issues of governance, the BJP government fared much worse than the previous Congress government. In 2007, during a similar survey, the Congress government had got fairly high ratings from voters on questions of governance. The BJP government was however not rated as highly by the voters on the same questions this time. For instance, in 2007 nearly two-thirds had said that development of Uttarakhand had improved under the Congress government; however in 2012 less than onethird said the development of the state had improved under the BJP government (Table 4C).

    Table 4D: Trend in Popularity of Major Political Leaders as Most Preferred CM (2002-12)

    Chief Minister Choices 2002 2004 2007 2009 2012
    B C Khanduri 3 2 14 30 34
    Harish Rawat 7 12 10 9 11
    Ramesh Pokhriyal 1 NC 1 NC 2
    N D Tiwari 8 26 18 14 6
    Bhagat Singh Koshyari 19 10 12 7 1
    Satpal Maharaj NC NC 4 5 4
    Harak Singh Rawat NC NC NC NC 3
    Yashpal Arya NC NC NC NC 2

    (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Respondents

  • (1) All figures in % and rounded off; rows do not add up to 100 as those who said “Don’t know” have not been reported here.
  • (2) Question asked in surveys- Now I will ask you about the assessment of the work done by the Congress/BJP government in Uttarakhand in the last five years. Do you think the condition of the following has improved, deteriorated or remained same? Source: Figures are based on post-poll/pre-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties. Total sample in the 2007 pre-poll survey was 1,379.
  • april 7, 2012

    who said “Don’t know” or gave other choices have been excluded; Responses above are to an open ended question.

  • (2) Question asked in the surveys – After this election, who would you prefer as the next chief minister of Uttarakhand? (No names were offered to those being interviewed; all responses are spontaneous and were post-coded)
  • (3) NC: names Not Coded in those years as the responses were insignificant. Source: All figures are based on post-poll/exit poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties alliances. Sample size in 2002 was 733; Sample size in 2004 was 491; Sample size in 2007 was 3,171; Sample size in 2009 was 771; Sample size in 2012 was 1,679.
  • vol xlviI no 14

    EPW
    Economic & Political Weekly

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    Table 4E: Popularity of B C Khanduri and Harish Rawat as Most Preferred CM, by Regions and among Communities

    Chief Minister Garhwal Kumaon Maidan Rajputs Hindu Choices OBCs

    B C Khanduri 49 32 27 46 25

    Harish Rawat 5 19 10 11 16

    All figures are in % and rounded off; Respondents who said “Don’t know” or gave other choices have been excluded; Responses above are to an open ended question. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

    Table 4F: Opinion of BJP’s Repeated Change of Chief Ministers between 2007 and 2012

    Opinion of BJP’s Repeated Change of CMs All Among
    Traditional
    BJP
    Supporters
    BJP did the right thing
    by changing CMs again and again 6 7
    BJP should not have removed
    B C Khanduri in the first place 42 61
    BJP should not have removed
    Ramesh Pokhriyal 1 2
    BJP should have kept one CM for
    five years, whoever it be 28 17
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: People have different opinions on the BJP’s repeated change of chief ministers during the last five years – some say BJP did the right thing by changing CMs again and again; some say B C Khanduri was doing fine and BJP should not have removed him in the first place, some say BJP did the right thing by bringing in Ramesh Pokhriyal and should not have removed him, and others say that BJP should have kept one CM for five years, whoever it be. What is your opinion? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.
  • Table 4G: Most Important Election Issue for People in Uttarakhand

    Most Important Election Issue %
    Unemployment 38
    Price rise 37
    Corruption 9
    Development of state 4
    Electricity, road, water, etc 3
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will read out certain issues. Please tell me how important were they to you while voting – very much, somewhat or not at all? Once the respondent had given an answer to each of the issues put before him/her, a follow-up question was asked to the respondent where only those answer categories where the respondent had said “very much” in the first question were read out again, and the respondent was asked to choose from among them the single most important election issue. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.
  • The survey data throws some light on the factors that may have made this a closely fought election. B C Khanduri’s personal image was a positive factor for the BJP and his popularity continued to be high with 34% of the surveyed r espondents wanting him to continue as the chief minister (CM) of Uttarakhand. Harish Rawat of the Congress was a distant second with 11% of voters wanting him as CM. Responses for Vijay Bahuguna were insignificant and therefore have not been reported (Table 4D, p 78). Khanduri’s popularity was highest in Garhwal with 49% of the people in his home region wanting him as the CM. Harish Rawat on the other hand did best in Kumaon, his home turf. If we look at CM preferences of different communities then the gap between Khanduri and Rawat was highest among Rajputs and lowest among Hindu OBCs (Table 4E).

    When voters were asked what they thought about the repeated change of chief ministers by the BJP during the last five years, 42% said that the BJP should never have removed Khanduri as chief minister in 2009 in the fi rst place. Twenty-eight per cent were of the opinion that BJP should have kept one CM for five years, whoever it be. Six per cent said that the BJP did the right thing by changing chief ministers again and again, and only 2% said that the BJP should not have removed Ramesh Pokhriyal as CM (Table 4F).

    Unemployment was the main issue for the voters of Uttarakhand. Thirty-eight per cent of the voters who were interviewed said it was the most important election issue. Price rise was not far behind at 37% (Table 4G).

    Survey Methodology

    The findings presented here are based on a post-poll survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi, in Uttarakhand. A total of 1,680 persons, randomly selected from the latest electoral rolls, were interviewed in the first and second week of February 2012 (after polling but before counting of votes) in 116 locations in 30 constituencies spread across the state. The assembly constituencies and four polling booths within each sampled constituency were selected using the Systematic Random Sampling technique. The respondents were sampled randomly (oversampling to allow for non-completion) from the updated electoral rolls of the selected polling booths. Of the 3,840 sampled respondents, 1,680 could be interviewed within the stipulated time.

    The social profile of the respondents interviewed largely matched the demographic profile of the state (Table 5). The interviews were conducted by specially trained fi eld investigators. The respondents were interviewed in the face-to-face interview situation using a structured interview schedule in Hindi. Respondents were mostly interviewed at their home, preferably alone. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box.

    Table 5: Sample Profile

    Social Background Census 2001 Survey 2012
    Women 49.0 45.1
    Urban 25.7 21.9
    Dalit 17.9 16.0
    Hindu 84.9 85.2
    Muslim 11.4 11.7

    All figures are in % .

    The fieldwork of the survey in Uttarakhand was coordinated by Annpurna Nautiyal (HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal), Jaya Pande (Government College, Ranikhet) and Rakesh Negi (HNB Garhwal University). The survey was designed and analysed by a team of researchers at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora, Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya, Jyoti Mishra, K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra, Kinjal Sampat, Rupali Warke, Shreyas Sardesai, Sohini Mookherjee, Vibha Attri, and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumar of the CSDS directed the survey.

    For the Attention of Subscribers and Subscription Agencies Outside India

    It has come to our notice that a large number of subscriptions to the EPW from outside the country together with the subscription payments sent to supposed subscription agents in India have not been forwarded to us.

    We wish to point out to subscribers and subscription agencies outside India that all foreign subscriptions, together with the appropriate remittances, must be forwarded to us and not to unauthorised third parties in India.

    We take no responsibility whatsoever in respect of subscriptions not registered with us.

    MANAGER

    Economic & Political Weekly

    EPW
    april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    Dear reader,

    To continue reading, become a subscriber.

    Explore our attractive subscription offers.

    Click here

    Comments

    (-) Hide

    EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

    Back to Top