While the seats won in the recently-concluded zilla panchayat elections may have been below the expectations of the Congress, they can take some solace in the fact that their vote share is still significantly ahead of the Bharatiya Janata Party in rural areas. This trend is in keeping with the perception that BJP is an “urban-based party”.
A collation and analysis of data done by The Hindu of the votes secured by winners and losers (which are the only immediately available information published by the State Election Commission) shows that there is a wide 12 per cent vote share gap between the ruling party and its principal Opposition BJP.
The vote share of Congress is nearly 47 per cent, while the BJP is at 35 per cent — a difference that translates to more than 20 lakh votes. The numbers show the presence of Congress in the top two of most seats (more than 90 percent of the seats, as opposed to BJP in 70 per cent). Also, a close reading of data shows that victory margins of the Congress are higher than that of the BJP.
The Janata Dal (Secular) — which has in the past primarily thrived in rural areas of southern Karnataka — shows erosion in voter base. At 15 per cent of the votes, the party has performed worse than the 20.5 per cent State-wide votes it had secured in the 2013 Assembly elections.
Moreover, even in its previous strongholds, the JD(S) has been relegated to runners-up spot in many seats. However, the data provided by the State Election Commission makes a comparison of these numbers with previous elections difficult. The commission, for instance, puts its focus on voting percentage and winners and vote shares of the previous zilla and taluk panchayat elections have not even been tabulated.
“Most people are interested in only the winners. We do give out forms to local election officers to calculate votes by every candidate. But the data runs in thousands of candidates and takes a long time to be tabulated. The data is rarely released,” says P.N. Srinivasachari, State Election Commissioner.
Even with the paucity of data, he believed that the analysis of the winners and losers, which have secured a significantly large chunk of the electorate, would show the vote share of the parties.
