The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): Releasing the final voter turnout on April 30, 2024 by the Election Commission of India after a delay of 11 days from the first phase of election held on April 19, and after 4 days delay from the second phase of election held on April 26 has given rise to a suspicion of voter turnout manipulation. Lack of transparency at several stages in the election machinery has been alleged, which can’t be ignored, especially when a research paper of August 2023 had found evidence of voter turnout manipulation in the Lok Sabha election 2019.
Before going into details, it should be recalled that under the subtitle “Turnout Manipulation: EVM Turnout Data Discrepancy” the paper titled “Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy”, the author Sabyasachi Das, an Assistant Professor of Economics in Ashoka University had found some evidence of voter turnout data manipulation in the 2019 Lok Sabha election data.
It was written in paper that it analyzed the turnout figures for 373 constituencies out of 543 in the country. In 64 per cent of the parliamentary constituencies the turnout was revised up, and in the rest of the cases, that is, in 36 per cent of parliamentary constituencies it was revised down. The paper computed the absolute difference in vote tallies between the two reports (the initial and the final) and found the median difference 358, the 90th and 95th percentile difference 3302 and 7357, respectively. The largest mismatch was 57,747 votes in the Gautam Buddha Nagar constituency in Uttar Pradesh. If the mismatch occurred due to some administrative errors or glitches in the EVM, then “large” discrepancies were expected to be randomly spread across parliamentary constituencies with different BJP Win margins.
The paper had found that the parliamentary constituencies that BJP barely won have 26 percentage point larger likelihood of having a “large” mismatch than parliamentary constituencies that the BJP barely lost. The result implied that the sample of closely contested constituencies that were disproportionately won by BJP also has a disproportionately higher likelihood of “large” turnout revision. The result was consistent with the manipulation hypothesis even as demonstrated in McCrary test. Discrepancy was observed larger in BJP ruled states that the non-BJP ruled states.
It was also pointed out in the paper that there was discontinuity in turnout difference, and said that the turnout data discrepancy went up in parliamentary constituencies barely won by the BJP. The paper suggested turnout manipulation not at the Election Commission of India level but at the local level, at the polling stations, could be either at the time of voting or counting. The paper also said that it was at lease party facilitated by weaker monitoring also during counting.
Several opposition leaders at the time of publication of the research work had asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) if they have some answer to such observation, but the ECI is yet to come out with an answer to the voter turnout data discrepancy suggesting manipulation – perhaps they don’t have an answer or they deliberately not answering it for the reason best known to them only. They don’t even have stated any reason for not answering this question of voter turnout manipulation.
Since EVM is a machine, the data of number of votes polled should be known with a push of button, within seconds, and that too with accuracy, and without any discrepancy. If these electronic voting machines can’t do even this, a question of reliability comes into being. Moreover, if we need manual intervention to know the “real data” of voter turnout after a great delay of 11 days or 4 days, it is quite unacceptable. Manual intervention is suggested in getting real voter turnout data. It must be read with the recent Supreme Court observation that EVMs are perfect unless there is manual intervention.
Now come to the data differences, about which Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Derek O’Brien has pointed out. He said that there was a 5 per cent jump in the numbers released on Tuesday (April 30) compared to figures shared earlier after the completion of second phase of voting on April 26. He asked, “Is it normal? What am I missing here?”
It should be noted that after the voting concluded on the 102 seats in the first phase, and 88 seats in the second phase, the ECI has said that “approximate trend” for the first phase was 60 per cent, and for the second phase was 60.96 per cent. However, the final official figures released revealed that the voter turnout for the first phase was 66.14 per cent and for the second phase, it was 66.71 per cent. The difference is 6.14 per cent for the first phase data, and 5.75 for the second phase data. Such a difference is unacceptably “large” suggesting something is seriously wrong in the election machinery – presently we don’t know where the problem lies from EVM or booth level to the Election Commission level. An explanation from the ECI is imperative for transparency to rule out any voter turnout manipulation suspicion, as such was found in the research paper that analysed the 2019 Lok Sabha election voter turnout data.
Yogendra Yadav’s comment on this huge difference is quite noteworthy who labeled voter turnout figures “unusual and worrying”. He said 3 to 5% difference was not abnormal in his experience of 35 years of his watching and studying Indian elections. He has objections on high difference this time, delay, and non-disclosure of the actual number of electorate and votes polled for each constituency and its segments.
“Yes, this information is recorded in Form 17 for each booth and is available with the candidates’ agent, but ECI alone can and must give the aggregate data to eliminate any possibility of fudging or discrepancy between votes polled and votes counted,” Yadav said.
Voter turnout form this time has also been changed which makes it difficult to compare the data with the earlier election. It does not even give the data on total electors in the constituencies.
CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury’s concern regarding the absence of absolute voter numbers in each parliamentary constituency therefore can’t be ignored. He questioned why this crucial information was not provided? He said, “percentages are meaningless unless this figure is known” expressing his apprehensions about the potential manipulation of election results, emphasizing that total voter numbers could be altered during the counting process. Here, the research paper mentioned previously should be taken into account which suggested that voter turnout manipulation might have done at the booth level or counting level.
Congress and other opposition parties have also expressed their apprehensions about voter turnout manipulation, Election Commission of India must come out with clarification to restore confidence of the people that there is and there will be no election result manipulation in the Lok Sabha Election 2024. It is all the more important in the backdrop of new law brought by Modi government on appointment of election commissioners is seen as an effort by PM Narendra Modi to tame the Election commission of India under him. The law had weaned out Chief Justice of India from the appointment committee, and Prime Minister was made all powerful on matter of appointment of election commissioners. Additionally, the two election commissioners have been made constitutionally unprotected from removal, a privilege that Chief Election Commissioner entertains. (IPA Service)
By Dr. Gyan Pathak
