February 21, 2016

GHMC results analysis: part 1

Background

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) was formed in 2007 by amalgamating the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) and 12 neighboring municipalities. GHMC's geographic extent covers around 626 square km spread over 3 districts, 24 assembly constituencies and 5 Loksabha constituencies.

The first elections to the reconstituted corporation were held in 2009. The next elections should have been conducted when its term expired in 2014. There was a good deal of delay accompanied by litigation, media posturing & soundbytes. The much anticipated elections were notified on January 12, 2016.

Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), the ruling party in Telangana, the main opposition party Congress as well as All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (Majlis or MIM) decided to fight the polls on their own. Telugu Desham Party (TDP), the ruling party in neighboring Andhra Pradesh (AP) state and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) the central ruling party continued their alliance forged in 2014 under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) umbrella albeit in a partially successful form. YSR Congress party (YCP), the main opposition in AP, decided to abstain from contesting, probably a wise decision in hindsight.

The ensuing campaign was quite colorful and kept media folks extremely busy. TRS virtually painted the city pink by putting up huge posters listing the achievements claimed by the state government at almost all important intersections. TDP came a somewhat distant second in the war for eyeballs while the other parties "also ran".

Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao (KCR), TRS strongman and Telangana Chief Minister, mostly stayed away restricting himself to a lone public meeting and a long press conference (described as "e-campaign") beamed live in many channels. The campaign mantle fell on his son & cabinet colleague Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao (KTR) who took the lead by hitting the road from dawn to dusk. Several leaders including ministers, members of parliament (MP) & legislators toiled along contributing their mite.

Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, TDP president and AP Chief Minister, played a more active role in the campaign than his Telangana counterpart addressing two public meetings and participating in a few roadshows. The star campaigner for NDA however was Naidu's son Nara Lokesh Babu who gave KTR a run for his money both in terms of working hours and media exposure. Several TDP & BJP leaders including virtually the entire AP cabinet worked hard for their candidates.

Even though the Congress election campaign was comparatively subdued, there was no dearth of optimism in the statements of party leaders. Majlis preferred to stick to its traditional low key style concentrating on corner meetings and door-to-door canvassing.

KTR in his campaign focused heavily on the same government achievements highlighted in the posters. Lokesh preferred to claim his party had done wonders for Hyderabad during its past rule. In a rather interesting but irritating vein he repeated ad nauseum "my grandfather beautified the Tankbund while my father built Hitec city". BJP's refrain centered on the central government's performance and assertions that the TRS government's claimed achievements were funded by the center. Congress chose the TDP path of "we developed Hyderabad during our rule". I wonder if any of these folks or the media realized the elections were for the corporation, not the assembly or Loksabha.

As one would expect in the roadshow map, the speeches were short and more or less repetitions. The media did not appear to mind though. There was near zero coverage of Majlis activities: a fact almost certainly dominated by the viewer profile undeterred by ground realities J

The elections conducted on February 2, 2016 passed off uneventfully but for a handful of minor incidents with a lone ward (ward # 52 Puranapool) needing a repoll. The votes were counted and results declared on February 5, 2016.

Objectives of this analysis

Various opinion polls were conducted in the run-up to the elections followed by several exit polls. As per a practice that looks to be peculiar to the Indian landscape, none of the agencies provided any reasonable information on the methodology including sampling.

The general thrust of most of these polls was that TRS would emerge a clear leader with 75-85 wards followed by Majlis (40-45 wards), NDA (20-25 wards) and Congress (10-15 wards) in that order with other minor parties and/or independents cornering a couple of wards. KTR & several TRS leaders repeatedly claimed during the campaign they would win 100+ wards inviting much debate.

The actual results, while reiterating TRS ascendancy & Majlis turf maintenance, proved the pollsters wrong by a good margin. Let me repeat the final numbers for the record even though all readers know these well:

·         TRS: 99
·         Majlis: 44
·         NDA: 5 (BJP: 4 plus TDP: 1)
·         Congress: 2

I would imagine the results call for certain amount of analysis by the pollsters. If any of these worthies did analyze the results to see where they went wrong, they chose not to share this information.

This apart, there are various reasons why the results needs to be analyzed gainfully given the historical nature of the outcome. For starters, this is the first time in the living memory of all but elderly Hyderabadis that the city conferred an absolute majority on any single party or even an alliance. The sheer sweep of the TRS victory deserves to be understood much better than is conveyed by the cold numbers. Finally for a party that skipped the first GHMC elections in 2009, this is a true a rags-to-riches story.

Some of the questions I will try to answer are as follows:

·         What is the true scope of this victory?
·         What does the future portend for TDP, BJP & Congress in Hyderabad or even Telangana?
·         What is likely to happen if assembly & Loksabha elections are held today?
·         How the inter-party NDA dynamics playing out?
·         How did the Hyderabadi vote swing in the last few years?
·         Finally the reasons behind this verdict to the extent they can be ascertained

I realize any findings that emerge will only have a limited term shelf life, probably a couple of years. A detailed analysis is nevertheless necessary in my opinion given the historic nature of the result.

General overview

A total of 1,333 candidates contested in the 150 wards. Eight wards recorded the lowest contestant count of 4 candidates. Jangammet (ward # 45) topped the list with 28 candidates followed by the 21 aspirants fighting it out at Suraram (ward # 129).

In terms of electorate, Subashnagar (ward # 130) led the way with 89,158 electors while Mehdipatnam (ward # 70) was the baby of the pack with just 29,853 electors. Mehdipatnam also recorded the fewest voters at 10,046 while the 39,010 voters of ward # 59 Mailardevpally recorded the highest vote count. Mehdipatnam had a bad day as it also recorded the lowest turnout of 33.7% followed closely by ward # 73 Vijay Nagar Colony (34.5%). Patancheru (ward # 113) was the champion in turnout with 57.7% of its electors going out to vote with Ramanthapur (ward # 9) doing quite well at 57.6%. The overall turnout was 45.1%, a number that was claimed (wrongly as it turns out) by media & observers as quite creditable.

A total of 20 political parties were in the fray. Independents totaling 643 in all polled around 4.5%. All political parties excluding the five principal contestants failed to breach the 1% mark. TRS was the only party to field candidates from all 150 wards while Congress just behind having missed Chawni (ward # 29). Majlis, in a strategy that appears to have worked well for them, entered the fray in just 60 wards.

As mentioned earlier, the alliance between TDP & BJP did not work out as well as the leaders may have hoped. The two parties indulged in "friendly contests" in as many as 13 wards. Rather strangely both the parties failed to nominate candidates in three wards including Chawni.

Loksatta party (LSP), an unrecognized political party founded and led by ex-bureaucrat Dr. Nagabhairava Jaya Prakash Narayan, formed an alliance with the two communist parties, a strange right-left combination. This alliance contested 68 wards but did not otherwise trouble the statisticians as their combined vote tally stayed under the 1% mark.

Twelve candidates secured single digit votes while 467 others fell short of three digits. Fortunately for me & my fellow analysts no contestant was out for a duck thus saving us from division by zero spreadsheet problems! As many as 1,013 individuals lost their deposit.

All but nine of the 320 aspirants that retained their deposits hailed from the five major parties. Three of these belonged to the Majlis Bachao Tehreek (MBT), a party formed two decades ago by breaking away from the Majlis. Five independents and a lone communist also retained their deposits. It may be possible that some of these so called "independents" were party rebels but I found this difficult to verify.

Overall analysis

The most important statistic (in fact more important than wards won) is obviously vote share. The highly concentrated Majlis performance is a peculiarity associated with Hyderabad that needs to be addressed for a better understanding. I therefore also calculated vote share performances in the 44 wards Majlis won and the 106 it lost separately. The results are tabulated below:


All (150)
Majlis (44)
Others (106)
TRS
43.7%
22.5%
50.5%
MIM
15.8%
57.1%
2.6%
TDP
13.1%
3.6%
16.1%
BJP
10.3%
6.3%
11.6%
INC
10.4%
5.2%
12.0%
OTH (others)
6.6%
5.2%
7.1%

The implications are clear: TRS not only swept the non-Majlis wards but also put in a creditable performance in the Majlis wards outperforming all other competitors put together. A 50%+ vote share in a three horse (TRS, NDA & Congress) race is as near a landslide as one can imagine.

Let us look at the 2014 elections to put the above in perspective. In what was clearly a three horse race TRS polled 46.1% of the votes in the five North Telangana districts with its best performance at 48.3% in the Karimnagar district. In the virtually direct contest with YCP in AP, NDA polled just around 46.9%. The 50.5% share TRS achieved in the 106 non-Majlis wards is not only its best performance ever but would have fetched dramatic windfall even if the contest was, like the AP situation in 2014, limited to just two parties.

As the usefulness of the OTH category is exhausted, I am dropping these folks going forward. I will also club the two NDA "allies" assuming that the votes cast for either party as the alliance vote. I will return to treating TDP & BJP separately when I analyze the inter-party NDA dynamics.

The number of votes polled in a given ward is clear indication of popularity. The party wise performance across vote bands is given below:


< 100
< 1k
1-2,000
2-5,000
5-10k
10-15k
> 15k
TRS
0
3
6
19
36
71
15
MIM
0
2
4
4
27
20
3
NDA
1
17
14
49
70
8
1
INC
1
37
36
59
16
0
0

Raziya Begum, the Congress candidate from Erragadda (ward # 101) earned the dubious distinction of polling the least votes among major party nominees. Her 64 votes represented a grand total of 0.3% in the ward! Another 37 of her colleagues failed to cross three digits.

Siraj Sultana, TDP nominee from Talab Chanchalam (ward # 34) ended up being the only other major party nominee to poll two digit votes. Another 17 of her NDA colleagues fell below the century mark. Majlis (2 nominees) and TRS (3 candidates) acquitted themselves reasonably well in the fight for the rock bottom status.

Mehdipatnam hit another record low in this election as the 5,356 votes polled by the Majlis candidate and former Mayor Mohammed Majid Hussain was the lowest winning performance. We can therefore reasonably conclude that any candidate polling less than 5,000 votes stood no chance of making it through while those polling 10,000 votes can consider themselves definitely in the running.

With the above perspective it is evident just 6% of the TRS candidates and 10% of the Majlis nominees can be regarded as no-hopers. A fifth of the NDA aspirants and almost half the Congress folks were doomed to fail.

Around 57% of the TRS candidates and a third of the Majlis nominees, on the other hand, did sufficiently well at the hustling to expect a reasonably good chance of winning. The corresponding number for NDA was under 6% while not a single Congress aspirant came close to the "expectation threshold".

Performance by vote share is another useful indicator. The party wise results showing the number of wards against vote share is shown below.


<10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
> 60%
TRS
9
12
10
29
32
50
8
MIM
6
4
4
7
11
11
17
NDA
31
42
53
25
7
2
0
INC
82
52
11
4
0
0
0

The implications are again obvious. TRS failed to cross the 20% threshold in only a seventh of the wards it contested while Majlis at one-sixths did only slightly worse. The corresponding number for NDA was 45.7% (73 out of 160 candidates) while Congress put in a pathetic performance with 89.9% of its candidates falling short of the 20% threshold.

On the other side almost 60% of the TRS candidates breached the 40% mark that can be considered reasonably winnable in a three horse race. Given its strategic selective focus Majlis did even better at 64.9%. The news for NDA was not good as just 9 of its nominees reached this "comfort level" while Congress's tally was a grand duck.

Retaining or losing the security deposit is closely related to the percent of votes polled by candidates running for office. This system was originally designed to keep fringe and/or flippant individuals from contesting although it does not appear to have succeeded in its objective. Let us now check how each party fared in this regard by comparing deposit forfeitures:

·         TRS: 16 (10.7%)
·         Majlis: 10 (16.7%)
·         NDA: 56 (35.0%)
·         Congress: 126 (84.6%)

Turns out more than a third of NDA contestants and all but a eighth of the Congress folks should not even have run given their poor showing J

Looking at a different angle, Majlis outperformed all the other four major parties put together in 30 of the 44 wards it won, nearly a two-thirds credit. TRS did so in as many as 75 wards i.e. three-quarters victory run. In addition, TRS scored more than the combined votes of its three "traditional rivals" in another 38 wards winning 4 and conceding the other 34 to Majlis.

BJP was the only other party that could repeat this feat in just one instance (ward # 50, Begum Bazar). The party also outscored all "traditional rivals" in Ghansi Bazar (ward # 49).

The majority scored by the winner provides an indication of the party strength in its strongholds. The party wise performance across majority bands is given below:


<100
< 1k
1-5k
5-10k
> 10k
TRS
1
4
31
54
9
MIM
1
5
14
17
7
NDA
0
1
3
1
0
INC
0
1
1
0
0

D. Mohan contesting on Majlis ticket from Jambagh (ward # 77) won with just 9 votes majority over his TRS rival. TRS nominee from Goshamahal (ward # 51, 78 vote majority) was the only one keeping him company in the sub-century majority category. Samala Hema of the TRS contesting from Seetaphalmandi (ward # 55) was the star performer of the day with a majority of 15,180 votes. The fact that her overall count of 19,533 votes was the highest in the election makes her an undisputed champion!

This reinforces the findings so far. Around 64% of the TRS winners and 55% of the Majlis victors crossed the 5,000 vote majority mark while a handful of winners from either party scraped through the barrel.

Did the winners excessively focus on winnable seats to maximize their opportunities? If yes, this would reflect in the rank they scored in the wards they did not win. TRS stood second in a quarter of seats they contested while ranking third in just under 7% wards. The party fell to the forth place in just 3 wards. Majlis did somewhat under perform vis-à-vis TRS with 11 of their 60 contestants placed third or fourth.

NDA acquitted itself reasonably well (fourth place or lower in 25 wards) compared to Congress that bagged the dubious "honor" in as many as 57 wards.

Conclusions

The TRS victory can be termed truly historic from all the investigated angles. The party scored an emphatic victory in all areas except those dominated by Majlis and acquitted itself commendably even in the 44 wards won by Majlis. It is not easy to dismiss the phrase "Tsunami of votes" used by some observers out of hand. Perhaps this is an exaggeration but not really much of it.

Majlis did exceptionally well but this appears to be a habit with them. Predictably well just about sums up their performance!

The much heralded NDA received a drubbing they will not forget so easily. The best its leadership can claim is that they did not perform as pathetically as the Congress. Given that they were virtually claiming to be the front-runner as recently as a couple of months ago, this does not wash so well J

Congress appears to have hit its nadir in the city. Some dressing down, eh folks!

In 50 over cricket terms, TRS led the way in batting, bowling, fielding & running between the wickets. They dominated the match at all stages & all round the ground. The only serious challenge was from a sole star opposition batsman (Majlis) who hit a few boundaries and a sole opposition bowler (Majlis again) who bowled a few maiden overs & took a few wickets. NDA representatives behaved like players with formidable reputations that failed to live up  to the crowd expectations. Congress was somewhere between the twelfth man & a spectator J

Drilling down further and more detailed analysis will not change the above conclusions. I will continue analyzing swing factors, vote changes as well as TDP-BJP dynamics. I will also touch a little on the qualitative and/or political angles about the how & why of the results.


Watch this space!

23 comments:

  1. First thing I object is using this "Seemandhra state" as It has ana official name "Andhra pradesh".When you are trying to be technically correct about every word you use,I thnk Its your negativity about that land might made you to use that word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure but this is not the subject of the post. I trust you would comment on the analysis itself, thanks.

      Delete
    2. I changed the word to Andhra Pradesh (AP) the first instance of use and the abbreviation AP subsequently. Hope this is OK.

      Delete
    3. OK,sure I will go through and let you know my openion.

      Delete
  2. gud analysis. I hv 1 question. how much % tdp got in mid-kosta region?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This depends on how you define the region. I am giving the percent numbers for three possible variations:

      - 4 districts (EG/WG/Krishna/Guntur): 42.6%
      - EG/WG/Krishna only: 41.7%
      - WG/Krishna/Guntur: 42.7%

      Delete
  3. What is the swing? Why you didn't mention it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will cover the detailed swing analysis later on.

      The change in vote share from the 2014 assembly elections is as per below:

      TRS: +24.1%
      Majlis: -0.5%
      Congress: -4.8%
      Others: -6.9%
      NDA: -12.0%

      Delete
  4. Interesting analysis. Irbid tongue credit of the TRS supremo and some key ministers like Harish and KTR who could build credibility and break the myths created around Telangana and TRS. Hope KCR will build the foundations for Telangana for th next 30 years with a long term vision. For that they need absolute majority for a decade at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks a lot for your comment.

      Perhaps credibility is the key factor right now but it will not last unless results follow sooner rather than later.

      I can't agree with you on the second point. Absolute majority carries several inherent risks.

      Delete
  5. Several friends sent messages. I am posting these below. Thanks a lot for your encouragement, guys!

    Rajesh: saw your blog, you write well. Analysis as professional as any Psephologist....Kudos to u

    Sridhar: good quality stuff. The analysis of results is professional. When are you getting into predictive analysis/psephology? You have a passion that shows

    Mohanrao: very very good! I think u worked very hard to do the analysis part

    Chandra Prakash: super good blogging ra

    Venugopal: good blog look forward to next one.

    Narendar: Good analysis and presentation

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Mr. Jai,

    Leaving aside 'numbers' and 'statistics', below are some snippets of conversation(s) that I overheard in the 'colony parks' / 'office settings':

    1) It is local 'Corporator', whom we are going to elect and it is advisable that he / she is from the same ruling party, so that local issues can be resolved better - thereby 'individual's' party preferences were given a go by

    2) Given the prevailing atmosphere of 'wapsi', whomever we elect are bound to join TRS (post election), why cast the vote for others?

    3) General indifference, not a holiday for many folks (except state government offices) .. voting percentage was very low, when compared to Assembly elections

    4) Stronger local candidates from other parties, got 're-badged' as TRS candidates. With their local influence & money power, they could gather committed voters to vote

    there are many more such explanations .. I will leave them for now.

    BTW: Looking at the political situation in TS .. TRS may soon have to form TRS-A, TRS-B, TRS-C ..., to fight the future election(s) .. otherwise, there is going to be NO fun for the general public and MORE so for the election watchers like us -:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks a lot for sharing your views.

      With due respect, I don't regard middle/upper class (colony/office) people as good at either forecasting or analysis of political goings-on. I frequently find many of these folks dreaming up theories on their own or parroting what they heard somewhere else as gospel.

      1. You may be right but most campaigners stressed on "achievements" claimed for their state government throughout the campaign.

      2. Interesting point but I doubt if there is any serious evidence backing it up.

      3. GHMC 2009 turnout was even lower.

      4. If this is true, this should also hold good for the rebels. I do not find any credible or even reasonable evidence.

      True there could be many more so called "explanations". To be honest, I believe most of these are in the minds of the people who say these, not in that of the voter at large. A collective state of denial in other words.

      Delete
  7. @ Mr. Jai,

    #4 : Just an example, which I am quite confident to mention! Corporator elect of my division is the wife of ex-TDP floor leader in GHMC. Till an year-and-half back, he was a strong supporter of TDP. Of course he is in TRS now and managed to get ticket for his wife. Quite a strong local leader with good support base and I must tell you that he is a readily approachable person too. I think out of 99 elects there are many such 're-badge' cases and it may be interesting to see, how they helped swell the numbers for TRS.


    BTW .. most of the folks whom I quoted are'staunch' Telanganites -:)

    'Explanations' .. (especially on public pulse) are what being bandied about day-in-day out in the media .. from Yogendra Yadav' types to 'common folks' like us, right??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the 2009 Congress & TDP councilors shifted to the TRS this time around. Many of these either contested themselves or obtained tickets for their family members.

      Having said this we must note that due to delimitation the 2016 wards no longer correspond to those in 2014 even if the names are the same. When the boundaries change quite a bit, the so called "local" support base may or may not work. The winner has to take new areas as well.

      Deciding whether the voters voted for a party or an individual is very tricky. The tests I would prescribe are:

      - Comparison with strong candidates fighting as independents
      - Comparison with the performance of the other "not so strong" candidates

      I found no credible or reasonable evidence that "strong candidates" or rebels did well.

      Finally even individuals with impeccable credentials are not immune to election waves.

      Delete
    2. "'Explanations' .. (especially on public pulse) are what being bandied about day-in-day out in the media .. from Yogendra Yadav' types to 'common folks' like us, right??"


      I am fully convinced "common folks" have a great nose for the political scent. However my definition of "common folks" is dramatically different from yours.

      Delete
    3. Agree that election wave, sweeps away many so-called 'strong' candidates. It doesn't explain why TRS had to de-risk and opt for these 'strong' candidates at the cost of their loyalists, especially when the leadership was confident of their victory.

      BTW: There is absolutely NO change in the boundaries of my division.

      Delete
    4. I don't know which ward you belong to but one lone instance is not adequate for any meaningful conclusions.

      There have been significant changes in several ward boundaries though. Around 30 wards have also "vanished".

      I have not seen any evidence that TRS loyalists from the pre-2009 days have been passed by. In any case I don't want to speculate on any party's motives. I did analyze the performance of both the "local strongmen" and senior leader's kin. I will present these findings in part 3.

      Delete
    5. Jai anna, you gave him fitting answer :)

      Delete
    6. Sorry but that is not how we should look at it. I treat it as exchange of views rather than a contest.

      Delete
  8. @ Mr. Jai,

    #4 : Just an example, which I am quite confident to mention! Corporator elect of my division is the wife of ex-TDP floor leader in GHMC. Till an year-and-half back, he was a strong supporter of TDP. Of course he is in TRS now and managed to get ticket for his wife. Quite a strong local leader with good support base and I must tell you that he is a readily approachable person too. I think out of 99 elects there are many such 're-badge' cases and it may be interesting to see, how they helped swell the numbers for TRS.


    BTW .. most of the folks whom I quoted are'staunch' Telanganites -:)

    'Explanations' .. (especially on public pulse) are what being bandied about day-in-day out in the media .. from Yogendra Yadav' types to 'common folks' like us, right??

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wonderful work. Is there any way to reach you? My E mail: bhandarusr@gmail.com, mobile: 98491 30595 (HYD)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you sir. I sent my contact details by email as desired.

      Delete

Please be brief. Please respect everyone's privacy and do not reveal any private information about yourself or others.

Suggestions on improving the quality of this blog are always welcome. All other comments should be relevant to the subject of the post. I will delete all spam and messages with abusive or vulgar language.

All material in my blog is original. I will remove any copyrighted material if notified.

You may not use the material from my blog without my permission. I will not refuse any reasonable request as long as you credit me and provide a link to my own post.

If you post rejoinders, rebuttals or supplementary posts in your own blog, please leave a comment with a link.