2024 Election Results Analysis : Part 1

Analysing the 2024 Elections: A Deep Dive into State-wise Performance and Candidate Selection

 

Image Credits: NDTV

Introduction

The 2024 election results have shaken a lot of BJP supporters and the day of result was tense and shocking for many like me. And there has been lot of talk, analysis, blame game, conspiracy theories floating around, hence I thought of giving a cold look at numbers and analysing the results in key states.

This analysis delves into the performance of different states, focusing on candidate selection, anti-incumbency factors, and overall election outcomes. By examining data from key states—Uttar Pradesh (UP), Maharashtra (MH), and Bihar—we can better understand the strategies that worked, those that failed, and the overall electoral dynamics.

State Selection

The states of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Maharashtra (MH), and Bihar were chosen for this analysis because they provide a comprehensive view of BJP's performance. UP and MH are the states where the BJP lost the most seats, while Bihar is a state where the BJP did not lose many seats. Additionally, UP has 80 constituencies, MH has 48, and Bihar has 40, making up 31% of the total Lok Sabha seats. This significant representation makes these states crucial for understanding the overall electoral trends. Also BJP lost 52 of sitting MPs from these 168 seats. Hence to analyse BJP's below par performance analysing these states is very important.

Deriving the Anti-incumbency Vote for the Sitting MP

In simple terms, the anti-incumbency vote refers to the tendency of voters to express dissatisfaction or disillusionment with incumbent candidates by voting against them in subsequent elections. 

One method of assessing the anti-incumbency vote involves analyzing the difference in lost votes between repeated and changed candidates in seats that were lost in the current election but had been won earlier. This approach allows us to attribute a portion of the lost votes to the incumbency factor, thus shedding light on the extent of voter discontent with incumbent candidates.

By comparing the vote reduction in seats where the BJP suffered defeat, we can distinguish between candidates who contested again (repeated candidates) and those who were replaced (changed candidates). The disparity in lost votes between these two groups helps us gauge the impact of incumbency on the election outcome and identify patterns of anti-incumbency sentiment among voters. 

So for example in Uttar Pradesh BJP lost 26 sitting seats where they repeated the candidates. The Average vote lost was 75000. They lost only 5 of the sitting seats where they changed the candidates. Here the average votes lost was 41000, hence we can say that the difference between these votes number can be attributed to the anti-incumbency assuming repeating candidate lost extra votes compared to a changed candidate because of his anti-incumbency.

Strategic Deficit Losses

Let us term the votes lost in seats where the BJP faced defeat despite changing the candidate as 'Strategic Deficit Losses'. These losses signal broader issues such as party performance, campaign effectiveness, local/national narratives, or organisational weaknesses. They reflect a shortfall in strategic planning and execution, highlighting areas where improvements are needed to enhance electoral success.

Uttar Pradesh (UP)

Election Outcomes

Category	Changed	Repeated	Total
Seats	24	51	75
WL	5	26	31
LL	7	4	13
LW	0	1	1
WW	12	20	32
Retention (%).	71%	43%	-

Seats Changed(%)

32%

Vote Loss Analysis

Average Vote lost	Changed	Repeated	Anti-incumbency Vote Lost
Won '19, Lost '24( WL)	41,000	75,000	34,000
Lost in both ( LL)	39,000	30,000	-
Won both (WW)	58,659	87,000	-

Notations

• WL: Won in 2019, Lost in 2024
• LL: Lost in both 2019 and 2024
• LW: Lost in 2019, Won in 2024
• WW: Won in both 2019 and 2024

Maharashtra (MH)

Election Outcomes

Category	Changed	Repeated	New	Total
Seats	9	15	4	28
WL	4	13	0	16
LL	1	0	1	2
LW	0	0	3	3
WW	4	2	0	6
Retention (%)	50%	14%	-	-

Seats Changed(%)

32%

Vote Loss Analysis

Average Vote Lost	Changed	Repeated	Anti-incumbency Vote Lost
Won '19, lost '24( WL)	32,724	85,631	52,907
Lost in both (LL)	-	-	-
Won both (WW)	52,874	14,850	-

Bihar

Election Outcomes

Category	Changed	Repeated	New	Total
Seats	3	13	1	17
WL	2	3	0	5
LL	0	0	0	0
LW	0	0	1	1
WW	1	10	0	11
Retention (%)	33%	77%	-	-

Seats Changed(%)

17%

Vote Loss Analysis

Average Vote Lost	Changed	Repeated	Anti-incumbency Vote Lost
Won '19, Lost '24 ( WL)	32,876	41,146	8,270
Lost both (LL)	-	-	-
Won both (WW)	29,199	28,583	-

Comparative Analysis

State	Strategic Deficit Losses	MP level Anti-incumbency Vote Lost	Average Vote Lost	Oppo. Vote Gain	Voter per Seat
UP	41,000	34,000	67,000	54,809	1,098,885
MH	32,724	52,907	64,254	1,56,000	1,191,235
Bihar	32,876	8,270	31,000	1,43,000	1,086,230

Insights

Uttar Pradesh

• Average Vote lost is more than Opponent's vote gain : 67,000 vs 54,809. Which means comparatively BJP supporters didn't come out to vote
• It also explains highest strategic deficit vote loss. Can be one of the important factor.
• Only 44% repeated could retain vs. 71% seats where candidates were changed were retained
• Significant candidate level Anti-incumbency across the state. Average effect: 34000
• Only one seat where Self Vote and Margin both improved for BJP was Dr. Mahesh sharma from Gautam buddha nagar

Maharashtra

• Opponent's gain in vote is 2.5 times that of self vote lost. 1,56,000 vs 64,254. Which means massive consolidation by runner's up and/or mobilization of new vote
• Strategic deficit loss same as Bihar ~ 33000
• Highest candidate anti-incumbency. 52907 vote difference between retained and changed flipped seats vote loss.
• No winning candidate could improve their vote number. Nitin Gadkari and Raksha Khadse were the only repeated candidates who won.
• Ram Satpute from Solapur was the losing candidate who increased the votes by ~20000, the opponent increased the number by 2,50,000 because of opposition consolidation
• 3 out of 5 new seats fought by BJP was won. Had they not contested, BJP's performance would have been dismal. New seats won are Satara, Ratnagiri and Palghar.

Bihar

• Huge gain in opponents vote. Almost 4.5 times of 'self vote lost'. 1,43,000 vs 31,000. 
• BJP saved in Bihar from massive defeat, because of huge margin in 2019 and less self vote lost in 2024
• Least anti incumbency vote lost of only 8000, indicates very strong candidates
• No winning candidate could add any new vote.

Conclusion

Uttar Pradesh

• Challenges: Performed worst in terms of countering opposition's narrative and organizational weaknesses. Highest strategic vote loss of 41,000 despite candidate changes.
• Opportunities: 
• Opponent has not gained much votes (Only 54,000 compared to 1.5L in other states). Hence result could be easily improved next time by mobilizing voters and effectively managing the narrative.
• Had more candidates been switched, results would have been better. Only 44% retention in repeated candidates versus 71% retention in changed candidates.

Maharashtra

• Challenges: 
• Performed worst in candidate selection. Only 14% of repeated candidates won.
• Had the highest anti-incumbency at the candidate level with 52,907 anti-incumbency votes. 
• Opposition consolidation and voter mobilisation was massive. Highest opposition voter increase. 
• Solutions:
• Need better candidates and significant pulloff of opposition votes now to gain back sweeping status

Bihar

• Challenges: High increase in opposition votes is a warning sign. If strong narrative building and getting confidence of opposition's voter is not done, next election will be very tough.
• Strengths: Exhibited strong candidate selection with minimal anti-incumbent votes. Good candidate selection practices will be crucial to maintaining performance.

In wrapping up, the loss in Uttar Pradesh isn't as devastating as it seems—it's a setback we can recover from with the right strategy tweaks and rallying our base. However, Bihar's performance next time around isn't a sure bet; we're sliding, and we need to slam on the brakes before it's too late. As for Maharashtra, it's our biggest blow yet, and it's time for a serious overhaul and major steps if we want to bounce back from this.

Hope, I could add value to the election analysis discourse going on the country right now with some logical analysis. Please comment on the blog post and let me know your thoughts/feedback. Suggestions are also welcome. 

Attaching my raw excel sheet which I made after few days of work. Open-sourcing it for others to use and improve and for feedback. https://shorturl.at/RGcTN