Voter turnout discrepancies in Maharashtra question legitimacy of mandate: Economist and Commentator, Parakala Prabhakar, to Karan Thapar for The Wire.
..........................................
The well-known economist and current affairs commentator, Parakala Prabhakar, has drawn attention to mystifying, inexplicable and disconcerting discrepancies in the official turnout figures put out by the Election Commission in Maharashtra which, he says, “question the legitimacy of the mandate”. Dr. Parakala is also Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s husband.
Very simply, when polls closed at 5.00 p.m. on the 20th, the turnout was 58.22%. By 11.30 p.m. on the same day, after accommodating people presumably waiting in the queue to vote at 5.00 p.m., it increased to 65.02%. Hours before the counting started on the 23rd it was put at 66.05%. This means that the turnout increased by 7.83% after polls closed at 5.00 p.m. Dr. Parakala estimates that this is, in terms of the number of people, an increase of almost 76 lakhs.
How could such an enormous number have been accommodated in the six hours between polls closing at 5.00 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. on the same day, when the final person waiting in the queue voted? To illustrate how impossible this actually would be, Dr. Parakala cited the following example. Let’s, for arguments sake, assume there were a thousand people waiting to vote in a booth when polling stopped at 5.00 p.m. Because they had arrived before 5.00 p.m. they would have the right to vote. If you assume one minute per person to vote – but actually it should be a lot more i.e. closer to 4 or 5 – it would take a thousand minutes for these people to vote. A thousand minutes is 16.6 hours. The problem is between 5.00 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. there’s only six and a half hours. So there is no way a thousand people could have voted in that time. How then could 76 lakhs have done so? This cries out for an explanation from the Election Commission. But the Election Commission is silent. Dr. Parakala said it hasn’t bothered to even acknowledge memorandums submitted by citizens raising this question.
The contrast with the Jharkhand turnout is equally illuminating. There were two phases of polling in that state. In phase one, at 5.00 p.m. the turnout was 64.86%. By 11.30 p.m. it increased to 66.48%, which is just a 1.79% increase. That’s very different to the nearly 8% increase in Maharashtra. In phase two, at 5.00 p.m. the turnout was 67.59%. By 11.30 p.m. that have become 68.45%. That’s an increase of only 0.86%. Again, that’s hugely different to the nearly 8% increase in Maharashtra. So the first question is how come the turnout didn’t increase in Jharkhand after polls-closed the way it did in Maharashtra? Again, there’s no explanation from the Election Commission.
Let’s go one step further. In Maharashtra, where the turnout increased by nearly 8%, the NDA won. In Jharkhand, where the turnout increased by less than 2% and 1%, the India Block won. That raises the question is there a link between the increase in turnout and who wins? It seems, prima facie, that where there is a large increase in the post poll-closing turnout the NDA wins. Where there is a small or minimal increase the India Block wins.
Dr. Parakala has spotted similar outcomes in the Haryana elections, during the recent Vidhan Sabha elections, and in UP, during the Lok Sabha elections. In Haryana, the post poll-closing vote share increased by 6.7% and the BJP won. In UP, the post poll-closing vote share increased by under 0.5% and the Opposition won the majority of seats. So what Dr. Parakala spotted in Maharashtra and Jharkhand seems to have happened earlier in UP and Haryana.
I will stop there. The issues Dr. Parakala addresses have been laid out. They are how do we explain the astonishing 7.83% post poll-closing turnout in Maharashtra? Why did nothing similar happen in Jharkhand? Is there a link between the increase in post poll-closing turnout and who wins? Doesn’t the outcome in Haryana (Vidhan Sabha) and UP (Lok Sabha) suggest something similar? What is the explanation for all of this? If it’s not explained adequately will that not create suspicion in people’s minds? Will that suspicion not, in turn, fuel damaging speculation that will vitiate our system of voting and our democracy?
Dr. Parakala talks about all of these issues.
Here is the link to the interview:
Join The Wire's Youtube Membership and get exclusive content, member-only emojis, live interaction with The Wire's founders, editors and reporters and much more. Memberships to The Wire Crew start at Rs 89/month. [ Ссылка ]
