Post Poll Survey and Analysis of 2011 Assembly Election in West Bengal

7/28/2019 Post Poll Survey and Analysis of 2011 Assembly Election in West Bengal

1/5

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2011 STATE ELECTIONS

june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly142

non-completion) rom the updated electoralrolls o the selected polling booths. No substitu-tion was allowed. O the 9,000 sampled re-spondents, 4,617 could be interviewed withinthe stipulated time.

The social pro le o the respondents in-terviewed largely matched the demographicpro le o the state (Table X). The discrepancy

between gures or rural and urban betweencensus and survey may be due to investigatorsailure o proper identi cation o the ruraland urban locations. The interviews were con-ducted by specially trained eld investigators.

Table X: Social Profile of Sample vs Censusin the Post-Poll Survey

Census 2001 (%) Survey (%)

Rural 56 63

Women 50 47

Muslim 6 4

Christian 6 6

Dalits 19 27

The respondents were interviewed in the ace-to- ace interview situation using a structuredinterview schedule in Tamil. Respondents

were mostly interviewed at their home, pre-erably alone. The voting question was askedusing a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballotbox.

The eldwork or the survey in Tamil Nadu

was coordinated by G Koteswara Parasad.The survey was designed and analysed by ateam o researchers at Centre or t he Study o Developing Societies, Delhi which includedBanasmita Bora, Shreyas Sardesai, Vibha Attri,

Alok Satpathy, Dhananjai Kumar Singh,Himanshu Bhattacharya, K A Q A Hilal, KanchanMalhotra, and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumaro the CSDS directed the survey.

Fifteenth Assembly Electionsin West Bengal

West Bengal went to the polls orits 294 assembly seats. Com-pared to ve phases in 2006,this time the election took place in sixphases, spanning over almost a month rom18 April to 10 May, 2011. O the 5.62 crore

voters on the rolls, 85% turned out to vote.This is the highest turnout in the history o assembly elections in West Bengal (theprevious highest turnout was 82.9% in1996). The increase in the number o con-

testants was even higher than the votingturnout. With a total o 1,792 candidatesin the ray, the state recorded an increasein the number o contestants by 8 percent-age points over the last assembly election(Table 1 A).

Widely expected to be a game changingelection, the assembly election was pre-ceded by the panchayat election in 2008,

the Lok Sabha election in 2009, by-electionsto the assembly in 2009 and municipalelections in 2010. The Le t Front ( LF) hadaced signi cant reversals in all theseelections. The Lok Sabha election o 2009

was the rst time when the Le t ailed to wina majority o seats and plurality o votes,ever since it came to power in West Bengalin 1977. The stage was, there ore, set or astraight ght between the incumbent Le t

Front, which had been in power withouta break or over three decades and theTrinamool Congress ( TMC) led alliancethat had acquired signi cant politicalspace in recent years.

There was a major change in alliancesthis time as ar as the one led by TMC

was concerned. In 2006, the TMC waspart o the NDA which also consistedmainly o the TMC itsel and o theBharatiya Janata Party ( BJP). This time,the TMC led alliance also included theIndian National Congress ( INC), NationalistCongress Party ( NCP) and Socialist Unity Centre o India-backed by TMC (SUCI).The LF, however, retained its allies as in

Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation Electorate,Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to theAssembly Elections (2006)

Assembly Elections 2011 Change from 2006(%)

Total electorate 5,62,06,476 +16.7

Male electorate 2,94,81,750 +16.8

Female electorate 2,67,24,726 +16.6

Total turnout 84.8% +2.9

Male turnout 84.4% +2

Female turnout 84.5% +3.7

Number of candidates 1,792 +8.3(1) For electorate and candidates the change is in %, with 2006as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentagepoints, compared to turnout in 2006.(2) Overall turnout figure taken from ECI website. Figures of Male turnout and Female turnout sourced from the website of CEO, West Bengal.Source: Figures downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/eci2011.html; and http://ceowestbengal.nic.in/mis_pdf/election_2011/vt_2011.pdf; accessed on 3-6-2011. Dataaggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

Table 1B: Summar y Results Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties in Alliances, Compared to

the Assembly Elections (2006)Seats Seats Gain/Loss Vote- Vote % Vote Swing

Contested Won of Seats Share Per Seat Since 2006since 2006 (%) Contested (% Points)

Lef t Front (LF) 294 62 -173 41.05 41.05 -9.13

Communist Party of India (CPI) 14 2 -6 1.84 38.55 -0.07

Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPI(M) 213 40 -136 30.08 41.25 -7.05

Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) 23 7 -13 2.96 40.38 -0.75

All India Forward Bloc (AIFB) 34 11 -12 4.80 41.55 -0.86

West Bengal Socialist Party (WBSP) 5 1 -3 0.74 43.56 -0.15

Revolutionary Communist Party (Rasik Bhatt) (RCPI(RB)) 2 0 0 0.23 32.80 +0.23

Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) 2 1 0 0.35 45.19 -0.01

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) 1 0 -1 0.05 19.65 -0.03

Trinamool Congress+ (TMC+) 294 227 +176 48.35 48.35 +7

All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) 226 184 +154 38.93 49.97 +12.29

Indian National Congress (INC) 65 42 +21 9.08 43.17 -5.63

Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) 1 0 0 0.03 7.11 -0.16

Socialist Unity Centre of India-backed by TMC (SUCI) 30(2) 1 +1 0.31 47.42 +0.31

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 289 0 0 4.06 4.13 +2.13

Gorkha Janamukti Morcha (GJM) 3 3 +3 0.72 79.46 +0.72

Independents 400 2 -2 3.29 NA -0.50

Others 482 0 -4 2.53 NA -0.22(1) Seat and vote changes since 2006 for LF and TMC+ constituents do not add up to the changes for the alliance as a whole becausethe composition of the alliances underwent a change af ter the last assembly elections. In 2006, the LF had also included NCP andLF backed Independents. In 2006 AITC had an alliance with the BJP. In 2011 AITC had an alliance with the INC. So for the purpose of calculating the seat change and vote swing between 2006 and 2011, TMC and INC figures of 2006 have been combined and the BJPhas been kept separate.(2) Other s in 2011 include JDU, BSP, HMS, IUML, JDS, SMT, JNP, CPIML(L), RPI, JMM, JVM, RPI(A), LJNSP, SWJP, SJP(R), INL, AMB,AJSU, IJP, GNLF, PDS, JKP(N), KSMUL, AIMF, SDPI and Other smaller parties.

(3) *SUCI which contested 30 seats was supported by TMC on 2 seats. In 28 seats, the part y pitted candidates against the Congress.The SUCI vote-share for those 28 seats has been included in Others.Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/eci2011.html; accessed on 3/6/2011. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.


2/5


Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25 143

2006, except the NCP. The BJP contestedthe elections alone.

Going by the trend witnessed duringthe 2009 Lok Sabha elections, subsequentelections or local bodies and bye-elections,the outcomes or the assembly elections

were on expected lines. Overall, the TMC led

alliance outper ormed the incumbent Le tFront. By winning 227 out o a total o 294seats, TMC+ reduced the Le t Front to mere62 seats. For the LF this was a loss o 173seats since 2006. The BJP which contested289 seats could not manage to win even asingle seat. The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha,

which has a limited pocket o infuence inDarjeeling area won all the three seats itcontested. The vote shares o parties, never-theless, depict a slightly di erent picture.

Although the TMC + got a decisive lead (o 7.4%) over the LF in terms o vote share,the Le t Front still managed to secure 41%o total votes polled (Table 1 B, p 142).

In terms o vote share per seat contested,the TMCs per ormance was better than itsally, the Congress. On an average, it gotabout 50% o votes polled in the seats itcontested (Table 1 B).

A disaggregated analysis o results showsremarkable variations in per ormance o the alliances. The LF, despite an overall

poor per ormance, actually had a leadover the TMC+ in the North Bengal Regionby 1 percentage point, however it could nottranslate this lead into seats. On the otherhand, the Greater Kolkata region provedto be a waterloo or the LF, or it managedto win just one out o 66 seats in the regionand had the lowest vote share in this region.The loss o LF meant direct gains or theTMC+. The LF su ered badly in its strong-hold districts o Coochbehar, Jalpaiguri,Dakshin Dinajpur, Paschim Midinapore,Purulia, Bankura and Bardhaman. In noneo these districts, the LF could win evenhal o the total seats. Moreover, it couldnot win even a single seat in our districts.By contrast, not only did TMC+ win mosto the seats in its stronghold districts, italso made a huge dent in the LF strong-holds (Table 2 A).

The loss or the LF was less in rural areascompared to the urban constituencies.Though the TMC+ was ahead o the LF

even in rural constituencies, but its lead wasless in rural constituencies compared tourban constituencies. The LF su ered a lot

Table 2A: Region-wise and District-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and PartiesRegions Total Turnout Left Front TMC+ BJP Others

Seats (%) Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote %

North 54 84.2 16 39.8 33 38.8 0 5.2 5 16.2

Cooch Behar 9 86.1 4 45.4 5 39.1 0 5.1 0 10.3

Jalpaiguri 12 85.7 5 39.5 6 38.5 0 6.1 1 16.0

Darjeeling 6 79.6 0 23.2 3 24.4 0 2.1 3 50.3

Uttar Dinajpur 9 82.3 3 41.7 5 36.3 0 3.8 1 18.3

Dakshin Dinajpur 6 88.7 1 42.9 5 48.4 0 4.2 0 4.6

Maldaha 12 82.7 3 40.8 9 43.8 0 7.3 0 8.1

South East 71 87.1 18 41.9 53 47.9 0 4.3 0 6.0

Murshidabad 22 86.0 7 41.7 15 44.4 0 4.9 0 9.0

Nadia 15 87.7 3 40.6 12 48.7 0 5.0 0 5.7

North 24 Parganas 16 87.7 4 41.4 12 48.7 0 4.4 0 5.5

South 24 Parganas 18 87.3 4 43.7 14 50.3 0 2.8 0 3.2

Greater Kolkata 66 79.7 1 37.1 65 56.2 0 3.5 0 3.2

Nadia 2 90.3 0 42.3 2 50.5 0 3.8 0 3.4

North 24 Parganas 17 83.3 0 37.1 17 57.7 0 2.8 0 2.4

South 24 Parganas 13 80.7 0 38.2 13 55.7 0 2.3 0 3.8

Kolkata South 4 66.6 0 29.7 4 60.0 0 3.3 0 7.0

Kolkata North 7 65.7 0 32.7 7 59.3 0 4.3 0 3.7

Howrah 12 80.8 0 38.0 12 53.0 0 4.9 0 4.1

Hooghly 11 84.1 1 38.4 10 56.5 0 3.8 0 1.3

South West 103 86.9 27 43.5 76 48.4 0 3.7 0 4.4

Howrah 4 84.4 0 40.2 4 54.4 0 2.9 0 2.5

Hooghly 7 86.1 1 42.1 6 51.8 0 2.8 0 3.3

Purbo Medinipur 16 90.2 0 43.0 16 52.3 0 2.9 0 1.8

Paschim Medinipur 19 88.5 9 44.6 10 46.6 0 3.5 0 5.4

Purulia 9 81.1 2 41.5 7 42.7 0 2.8 0 13.0

Bankura 12 87.1 3 43.8 9 47.1 0 4.0 0 5.1

Bardhaman 25 86.3 9 44.8 16 48.5 0 3.9 0 2.8Birbhum 11 86.9 3 42.3 8 47.1 0 6.5 0 4.1

Total 294 84.8 62 41.1 227 48.4 0 4.1 5 6.5(1) Others in th is tabl e and in Table 2B, 2C and 2D include JDU, BSP, HMS, IUML, JDS, SMT, JNP, CPIML(L), RPI, JMM, JVM, RPI(A), LJNSP, SWJP,SJP(R) , INL, AMB, AJSU, IJP, SUCI(C), GNLF, PDS, JKP(N), KSMUL, AIMF, SDPI, GJM, Other smaller parties and Independen ts.(2) Regional classification in West Bengal does not follow the district boundaries with some urban constituencies of the districts of North and South 24 Parganas, Nadia, Hooghly and Howrah lying cheek-by-jowl with the Kolkata district. These constituencies withAC id 92, 93, 102, 104, 107, 118, 119, 137, 140, 144, 174-8, 180 , 184, 188, 189, 198-202 are i ncluded i n Greater Kolkata r egion.Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2B: Category-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Partiesby Reserved and General ConstituenciesCategory Total Turnout Left Front TMC+ BJP Others


SC 68 87.6 20 44.4 48 47.8 0 4.0 0 3.8

ST 16 85.4 10 40.0 5 36.0 0 6.3 1 17.7

General 210 83.9 32 40.0 174 49.5 0 3.9 4 6.6Total 294 84.8 62 41.1 227 48.4 0 4.1 5 6.5Source: As in Table 1B.

in the semi-urban and urban constituencies.It is here that the TMC+ pushed the LF tothe corner and made all the di erence inthe poll outcome. In the semi-urban con-stituencies, the TMC+s vote lead over theLF was 11 percentage points. The LFs per-ormance was the worst in the 52 urban

constituencies, where it could not wineven a single seat (Table 2 C, p 144).

In the past, the LF always had an advan-tage in the reserved constituencies or SC /ST as compared to the general seats. Evena ter this de eat, the LF did not give in

easily in these constituencies. This is evi-dent rom the act that the TMC+ had a

very small lead in terms o vote share (3-4percentage points) over LF as against over9 points lead in general seats. In act, hal o the total seats that the LF won duringthe recent assembly elections are reserved

seats (Table 2 B).That act that the LF did comparatively

well among SC and ST reserved constitu-encies is urther con rmed by its betterper ormance in constituencies with higherconcentration o dalits and adivasis. In


3/5



constituencies with 30% or more dalitelectorate, the LF was marginally behindTMC+ in terms o vote share. In constitu-encies with a concentration o Adivasi

voters, the LF enjoyed a lead o 8 percen-trage points over TMC+. The LF did not doall that badly in constituencies with high-er concentration o Muslims. In these con-

stituencies, the TMC+ had a lead over theLF by 3 percentage point (Table 2 D).

The survey data reveals that the age o voters played an important role in infu-encing the poll outcome. While the TMC+gained across age-groups, its gain com-pared to 2006 was highest among young

voters (21 percentage points in the 18-25age group) (Table 3, p 145).

Clear political articulation can be seenin terms o locality or residence. Even asthe support base o LF eroded both in ruraland urban areas, yet the rural voters didnot desert it the same way as the urban

voters. As compared to 2006, while it got7% less votes among rural voters in 2011,the loss was disproportionately highamong urban voters (16%). It also trailedbehind the TMC+ among urban voters by 16 percentage points.

Like locality, educational background o voters also seems to have infuenced thepoll outcomes. By and large, the non-liter-

ates still pre erred the LF, but those withhigher levels o education appeared tohave gone out o the way to support the

TMC+. The TMC+ had a lead o over 11 and16 percentage points over the LF amongthose educated up to secondary and postsecondary level.

As in the case o the highly educated,the LF su ered a big loss amongst theupper class voters, although its supportbase denuded across classes. Compared to

the 2006 assembly election, the support baseo the LF amongst the upper class votersdeclined by 15 percentage points. It is ur-ther con rmed by a huge erosion in thesupport base among those belonging tosalaried/pro essional and business classesparticularly in urban areas. Among the vot-ers o these classes, the LF lost 19 and 12%

votes, respectively, as compared to 2006.Nonetheless, the lower class mainly skilledand semi-skilled workers also deserted theLF the way salaried/pro essional classesdid. Needless to say, the TMC+ took a hugelead over the LF among these classes. TheLF, however, retained much o its groundacross occupational groups/classes in ruralareas. Barring the exceptions o those at thelowest rungs o occupational ladder, thatis, agricultural and non-agricultural workers,its loss among the armer and salar ied andpro essional classes was marginal. Never-theless, the marginal armers and theshare croppers continued to pre er the LF

as in the last assembly election. Not only did the LF gain among them, it also took alead, though small, over the TMC+.

The LF lost and the TMC+ improved its vote share across caste-communities. But theLF su ered badly among the upper castesand OBCs. Among brahmins, kayasthas andOBCs, it lost by 17, 18 and 14 percentagepoints respectively as compared to 2006.The loss o LF among these caste groups

turned out to be a direct gain to the TMC+enabling it to push the LF way behind, interms o lead in vote share. Even though theLF ailed to etch as many votes as it did in2006 among the SCs as a whole, it retainedits support base among the Rajbansis, themost populous groups within the SCs (18.4%o total SC population). Although a signi -cant decline in Muslim vote or LF, as theCSDS survey shows, had already taken placeby 2006, it however, did not do as badly as

was expected in this election. Comparedto the last assembly election, the LFs lossamong the Muslims was marginal.

How did people assess the work done by LF government? As ar as satis action withoverall per ormance o the LF governmentis concerned, slightly less than hal the

voters, as the survey data indicates, weresatis ed with whatever the governmentcould do during past ve years. But com-pared to ve years ago, the LF governmentenjoyed much less approval o people on

the work done by it (Table 4 A, p 145). Themajority o people, o course, stood satis edon many parameters o development suchas conditions o road, supply o electricity,quality o education in government schools.

And yet, the LF had to contend with muchlower ratings compared to what its gov-ernment had ve years ago. As theCSDSsurvey indicates, the LF government

was rated badly on the issue o law andorder in the state (Table 4 B, p 145). It isurther con rmed by poor handling orsheer mishandling o various incidentsdirectly related to law and order. Only asmall minority o those who had heardabout the incidents o violence particularly in Nandigram, Singur, Lalgarh and Netai

Table 2D: Dominant Community-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Partiesby Major Community in the ConstituencyMajor Community Total Turnout Left Front TMC+ BJP Others


Muslim 30% and above 87 85.4 25 41.8 61 45.3 0 4.6 1 8.3

SC 30% and above 89 87.5 28 43.7 61 46.7 0 4.5 0 5.1

ST 30% and above 8 83.7 5 37.9 2 29.5 0 5.5 1 27.1(1) The classification of constituencies by religious groups is based on Census 2001 and description of constituency boundaryprovided by the De limitation Commission 2002. However, it may be noted that census does not provide info rmation on religionbelow Tehsil/Taluka/Block level and that a constituency often cuts across these administrative units. So, in order to arrive atconstituency level estimates of religious groups, the principle of proportionality was used to aggregate and disaggregatepopulation below these administrative unit s. It may also be noted that t hese categories are not mutually exclusive, since theconsti tuenci es fall ing in eac h categ ory d efin ed by concentration of one community can and do overlap with concentration of anothercommunity as well.Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2C: Locality-wise Analysis Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties by Rural-UrbanNature of ConstituencyConstituenc y Type Total Turnout Left Front TMC+ BJP Others

Seats (%) Seats Won Vote % Seat s Won Vote % Seats Won Vote % Seats Won Vote %

Rural 197 86.9 57 42.7 136 45.7 0 4.2 4 7.4Semi Urban 45 85.3 5 39.4 39 50.5 0 3.9 1 6.2Urban 52 76.8 0 36.0 52 57.1 0 3.6 0 3.3Total 294 84.8 62 41.1 227 48.4 0 4.1 5 6.5(1) Rural constituencies are those constituencies where 75% or more electors live in r ural areas. Semi Urban constituencies arethose constituencies where more than 25% but less than 75% of electors live in urban areas. Urban constituencies are thoseconstituencies where 75% or more electors live in urban areas. The classification of constituencies is based on Census 2001 anddescription of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002 read with the urban/rural location indicatedon the top sheet of electoral rolls for each Polling Booth Area. Computation and classification done by the CSDS Data Unit.Source: As in Table 1B.

available at

Delhi Magazine DistributorsPvt Ltd

110, Bangla Sahib MargNew Delhi 110 001

Ph: 41561062/63


4/5


Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 18, 2011 vol xlvi no 25 145

approved o the actions taken by the gov-ernment (Table 4 E, p 146).

How ar the mishandling o variousissues refects upon the electoral prospecto the LF, the CPI(M) in particular, calls or

Table 3: Social Basis of Voting: Survey-based Estimates of Vote for Major Alliances/Parties by Gender, Age,Education, Locality, Class and Caste/Community in Assembly Elections (2006 and 2011)

Left Front TMC+ BJP Others N in2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2011

Age groupsUp to 25 years 56 37 34 55 3 3 7 6 85826-35 years 49 40 43 48 3 5 6 6 1,19236-45 years 49 43 45 46 2 5 4 6 1,24146-55 years 48 43 41 48 1 4 9 6 82356 years and above 53 43 38 46 5 3 5 8 799

GenderMen 50 42 44 48 2 4 6 5 2,580Women 51 40 41 49 3 4 6 8 2,331

Level of educationNon-literate 56 46 34 44 4 3 7 6 1,032

Up to primary 48 43 42 48 2 3 8 6 1,509

Up to matric 48 39 46 50 3 5 4 6 1,451

College (no degree)and graduate 51 36 43 52 3 5 3 8 826

Postgraduate andprofessionals 54 27 4 4 52 2 7 0 15 83*

Locality

Rural 50 43 40 48 2 4 7 6 4,014Urban 50 34 45 50 3 5 3 10 898

ClassUpper 51 36 43 49 4 6 2 9 635

Middle 47 41 46 49 3 5 5 6 769

Lower 51 42 39 48 2 5 8 6 2,360

Poor 54 43 37 48 1 2 7 7 1,148

Caste communityBrahmin 54 37 44 51 2 5 0 8 245

Kayastha 54 36 43 49 1 8 2 6 561

Other Upper Caste 45 40 44 49 7 4 5 7 777

OBC 53 39 38 49 0 4 8 8 526

Rajbanshi 55 53 34 37 1 7 9 3 119

Namashudhra 57 41 38 48 1 3 4 7 273Other SC 54 43 36 46 2 6 9 5 522

ST 55 45 32 43 3 3 10 9 201

Muslims 46 42 49 50 0 2 6 5 1,418

Others 48 44 42 47 4 3 7 7 269(1) All figu res except N are in % and rounded off .(2) N stands for sample size for the relevant row. In some cases the sample size is too small and figures indicated with * need to beread with caution.(3) Educational categories: are defined as follows. Non-Literate: A person who can neither read nor write in any language. Up toPrimary: It includes the persons who received formal schooling; either completed the whole primary cycle (I-V) or completed oneor other grades of it. Up to Matric: It includes persons ranging from those who received schooling beyond the primary cycle tothose who actually completed the 10th standard. College (no degree) and graduate: It includes persons who went to college butcould not receive a degree and t hose who completed five years of education in college. Postgraduate and Professionals: It includespersons who received education beyond graduation either in general education or in specialised streams/courses.(4) The Class scheme used here takes into account two elements of material wealth durable household assets and monthlyhousehold income. Upper are those who had either a car/jeep/tractor or colour TV, scooter, telephone, fridge, air conditioner,pumping sets (rural) and LPG (rural), or whose monthly household income was above Rs 20,00 0. Middle class respondents arethose who had any three out of four assets such as telephone, colour TV, scooter/motor cycle and fridge in their households orwhose monthly household income was above Rs 5,000 and up to Rs 20,000. Lower class respondents are those who had any threeout of four assets such as B/W TV, electric fan, bicycle and LPG in t heir households or whose monthly household income was aboveRs 2,000 and up to Rs 5,000. Poor are those who had no more than two out of the household assets or whose monthly householdincome was Rs 2,000 and less.(5) Since the analysis uses data-file weighted by actual vote shares, it holds on the assumption that any discrepancy between thereported vote in the post-poll survey and the actual vote share is evenly distributed across all the social groups.(6) Others in this table inc lude JDU, BSP, HMS, IUML, JDS, SMT, JNP, CPIML(L), RPI, JMM, JVM, RPI( A), LJNSP, SWJP, SJP(R), INL, AMB,AJSU, IJP, SUCI(C), GNLF, PDS, JKP(N), KSMUL, AIMF, SDPI, GJM, Other smaller parties and Independents.Source: All figures are based on a p ost-poll surveys carried out by C SDS in 2006 and 2011. Total sample size in 2006 was 3,381 totalsample size in 2011 was 5,166; In these surveys the respondents were asked to indicate who they voted for by using a ballot paperthat carried the list of candidates their party names and symbols as on the EVM in their constituency. Figures reported here are forrespondents who said they voted. The investigators checked if these respondents carried a mark on their finger. Those without afinger mark have been e xcluded from this analysis. The raw survey figures were weighed by actual vote share obtained by majoralliances/parties in the final results.

a deeper probe, but the credibility o theparty seems to be at stake. A large majority

o people agreed with the allegations o prevalence o widespread corruption withinthe CPI(M). A large chunk o people also

a rmed that party workers o ten intrud-ed into their private/personal space (Ta-ble 4 F, p 146). The negative image o theparty created lately was in conjunction

with a declining popularity o the thenChie Minister Budhhadeb Bhattacharjeehimsel . His popularity rating dipped

rom 45% in 2006 to 30% in 2011. On theother hand, the popularity graph o MamtaBanerjee continued upward trend and

Table 4A: Level of Satisfaction with the IncumbentGovernment (2006 and 2011)Satisfactio n with the Work 2006 2011 N in 2011done by Left Front Government

Satisfie d 64 49 2,552

Dissatisfie d 26 37 1,912

No opinion 10 14 697(1) All fig ures except N in % and rounded of f (2) N stands for sample size for the relevant row.

(3) Question asked in 2011 What is your assessment of the work done by the Left Front Govt in West Bengal duringthe last five years? Would you say that you are satisfied ordissatisfied with it? Identical question was asked in 200 6.Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried outby CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of majorparties/alliances. Total sample in 20 06 was 3,381.

Table 4B: Citizen's Assessment of the Work Done byLF Govt during Its Tenure for Various Public Goodsand Services (2006 and 2011)Areas 2006 2011

Im- Deterio- Im- Deterio-proved rated proved rated

Condition of roads 77 21 75 23

Supply of elect ricity 74 24 66 30

Supply of drinking water 70 28 59 37

Quality of education ingovt schools 73 22 61 31

Medical facilities ingovt hospitals 50 41 46 46

Law and order situation 61 25 45 40(1) All figures in % and rounded off ; rows do not add up to 100as those who said Dont know have not been reported here.(2) Question asked in 2011- Now I will ask you about theassessment of the work done by the LF government in thestate in the last five years. Do you think the condition of roads, electricity etc has improved or deteriorated? (Probewhether fully or somewhat improved or deteriorated).Categories of Fully improved and Somewhat improvedhave been clubbed together as Improved; categories of Fully deteriorated and Somewhat deteriorated have beenclubbed together as Deteriorated.Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried out

by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of majorparties/alliances. Total sample in 20 06 was 3,381.

Table 4C: Trend in Popularity of Major Political Leadersas Most Preferred CM(2001-11)Chief Minister Choices 2001 2004 2006 2009 2011

Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee 28 23 45 30 31

Mamata Banerjee 35 11 23 20 44

Jyoti Basu 9 2 2 5 NA

Pranab Mukherjee 2 1 6 4 2(1) All figures are in % and rounded of f; Respondents whosaid Dont know or gave other choices have been excluded;Responses above are to an open ended question.(2) Question asked in the surveys - "After this elec tion, whowould you prefer as the ne xt chief minister of West Bengal?"(No names were offered to those being interviewed; allresponses are spontaneous and were post-coded).(3) NA: Not Applicable.Source: All figures are based on post-poll surveys carried outby CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of majorparties/alliances. Sample size in 2001 was 1,793; Sample size in2004 was 1,026; Sample size in 2006 was 3,381; Sample size in2009 wa s 2,041; Sample size in 2011 was 5,166.


5/5



eventually pushed Buddhadeb Bhattacharya way behind in the recently concluded as-sembly election (Table 4 C).

Table 4D: Citizens Comparative Assessment of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Jyoti Basu GovernmentsWhose LF Governmen t was Better? 2006 2011 N in 2011

Buddhadebs government 35 9 454

Jyoti Basus government 15 39 2010

Both equally good 20 18 917

Both equally bad 14 13 668(1) All figures are in % and rounded of f; Respondents who saidDont know or gave other choices have been excluded.(2) Question asked in 2011 - If you had to compare bet weenJyoti Basus term as chief minister and BuddhadebBhattacharjees term as chief minister whose governmenthas been better? Identical question was asked in 20 06?Source: All figures are based on p ost-poll surveys carried outby CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of majorparties/alliances.

Table 4E: Citizens Awareness of Key Incidents andTheir Assessment of Left Front Govts Handlingof Those IncidentsIncident s Heard How Did LF Govt Handle It?

About It Handled HandledWell Poorly

Nandigram violence 80 20 41

Lalgarh agitation 65 17 34

Singur agitation 77 20 40

Rizwanur Rahman case 52 13 25

Netai killings 43 7 25(1) All figures are in % and rounded of f; Rest Not Heard. Thosewho said Cant say have not been reported here.(2) Question- Now I will ask you about a few events/incidencethat took place in West Bengal over the last five years. Please tellme whether you have heard about ..? How would yourate the govt handling of..- handled well or poorly?Source:All figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS.Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.

Table 4F: Citizens Perception of CPI(M)Statements about CPI(M) Agree Disagree

There is a lot of corruption in the party 57 21

Party continues to follow itsrevolutionary principles 33 31

Party workers and leadersintimidate common people 36 36

Party workers interfere in peoples

personal matter 41 30(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Those who saidCant say or had No opinion have not been reported here.(2) Question -Now I will read out some statements aboutCPI(M) party in West Bengal. Do you agree or disagree withthe statement- there is a lot of corruption?Source: All figures are based on a post-poll survey carried outby CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of majorparties/alliances.

Survey Methodology for West BengalPost-Poll Survey The ndings presented here are based on a post-poll survey conducted by Centre or the Study o Developing Societies ( CSDS), Delhi in WestBengal. A total o 5,166 persons randomly selected

rom the latest electoral rolls were interviewed,between 19 April and 13 May (a ter polling butbe ore counting o votes) in 300 locations in75 constituencies spread across the state. Theassembly constituencies and our polling booths

within each sampled constituency were selectedusing the Systematic Random Sampling tech-nique. The respondents were sampled randomly (oversampling to allow or non-completion)rom the updated electoral rolls o the selectedpolling booths. No substitution was allowed. O the 9,000 sampled respondents, 5,166 could beinterviewed within the stipulated time.

The social pro le o the respondents in-terviewed largely matched the demographicpro le o the state (Table X). The discrepancy between gures or rural and urban betweenCensus and Survey may be due to investigatorsailure o proper identi cation o the rural andurban locations. The interviews were conductedby specially trained eld investigators. The re-spondents were interviewed in the ace-to- aceinterview situation using a structured inter-

view schedule in Bengali. Respondents weremostly interviewed at their home, pre erably alone. The voting question was asked using adummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box.

Table X: Social Profile of Sample vs Census inthe Post-Poll Survey

Census 2001 (%) Survey (%)

Rural 72 80

Women 48 48

Muslim 25 30

Adivasi 6 5

Dalits 23 23

The eldwork o the survey in West Bengal wascoordinated by Suprio Basu. He was assisted eldsupervisor, Jyotiprasad Chatterjee. The survey

was designed and analysed by a team o re-searchers at Centre or the Study o DevelopingSocieties, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora,Shreyas Sardesai, Vibha Attri, Alok Satpathy,Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya,K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra and Yogendra

Yadav. Sanjay Kumar o the CSDS directedthe survey.

Puducherry Assembly Elections

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties in Alliances, Compared to the Assembly Elections (2006)Seats Contested Seats Won Gain/Loss of Seats Vote-Share Vote % Per Seat Vote Swing

since 2006 (%) Contested since 2006 (% Points)

Congress+ 30 9 -11 40.40 40.40 -8.96Indian National Congress (INC) 17 7 -3 26.53 46.05 -2.68Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) 10 2 -5 10.68 33.28 -1.91Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) 2 0 -2 2.48 35.28 -1.32INC backed Independent 1 1 +1 0.71 22.00 +0.71AINRC+ 30 20 +13 48.32 48.32 +20.41All India NR Congress (AINRC) 17 15 +15 31.75 55.47 +31.75All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) 10 5 +2 13.75 41.02 -2.29Communist Party of India (CPI) 1 0 -1 0.94 30.70 -2.12Communist Party of India(Marxist) (CPI(M)) 2 0 0 1.03 18.82 -0.89Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) 1 0 0 0.85 28.04 -1.88Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 20 0 0 1.32 1.95 -1.75Independents 78 1 -2 9.41 NA -4.50Others 29 0 0 0.55 NA -5.20(1) Others colum n for 2011 include JD(U), BSP, RSP, CPIML(L), LJP, IJNK, PBM, SDPI Ot hers fo r 2006 in clude JD(S), BSP, FBL, RSP, RPI(A), LJP, MDMK, PMC and Other pa rtie s.(2) CPI(M) contested two seats. However the part y contested on only one seat as part of the AINRC+ alliance. On the other seat it put up it s candidate against the AINRC. The vote-share for that seat hasbeen included in Others. However Vote % per seat contested for CPI(M) takes into account both the seats it contested.Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/eci2011.html; accessed on 3/6/2011. Data aggregatedand recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

Table 1A: Summary Elec toral Participation: Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Elections (2006)Assembly Elections 2011 Change from 2006 (%)

Total electorate 8,10,630 +22.9Total turnout 86.1% +0.2Number of candidates 187 -14.2For electorate and candidates the change is in %, with 2006 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentage points, compared to turnout in 2006.Source: Figures downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/eci2011.html; accessed on 3-6-2011. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS Data Unit.

Documents

Post Poll Survey and Analysis of 2011 Assembly Election in West Bengal