You are here: Home » Opinion » Columns

# Praveen Chakravarty: Independent candidates: Party-poopers in disguise?

## In our electoral system of first-past-the-post, the probability that an independent will influence the eventual outcome of an election is statistically high

In the 2009 election in Pune, there were 36 candidates that contested, of which 25 were A total of 25,701 people voted for these 25 independents but the highest vote share for a single independent candidate was just 3,088. The winner - Suresh Kalmadi defeated the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s Anil Shirole by 24,768 A mischievous question - had all the voters that voted for instead together voted for Anil Shirole, would we not have had the Commonwealth Games scam? It is a mathematically silly, but a deliberately provocative question.

In the Tonk-Sawai Madhopur constituency in Rajasthan, out of the 17 candidates that contested the 2009 elections, nine were and secured a total of 24,070 The winner, current Union Minister of State for Finance Namo Narain Meena, won by just 318 Do voters that vote for inadvertently impact the eventual outcome?

The chances of an independent candidate winning a election is less than 0.4 per cent. To contextualise, that is akin to the odds of a cricket captain winning the toss eight consecutive times. Only Colin Cowdrey has achieved that in the nearly 150 years of international cricket. A mere 13 out of 3,806 candidates that contested the 2009 as independents, won. The winning percentage of independents has been declining steadily over the past four (see table). More than half the get less than 5,000 or 0.65 per cent of the polled. An independent candidate on average has got between 4,500 to 7,000 over the previous four In contrast, the has set a minimum threshold of 16.7 per cent vote share to not lose the Rs 25,000 security deposit, implying that anyone securing less than this is not a serious candidate. Such abysmal odds stacked against of even getting back their security deposit, forget incurring election campaign expenses and winning the election, it should ideally deter people from contesting as independents. But, that is not the case.

The number of from the 1998 to the last 2009 rose from 1,915 to 3,806 - a near 100 per cent growth. Of the total 543 constituencies, there were in 515 in the 2009 In the 1998 elections, independents contested in 473 Nearly one out of every two candidates in the 2009 was an independent candidate, jumping from one in three in the 1998 Bizarrely, there are more candidates contesting as independents in more with every passing election, making it even harder for anyone to win or even retain their security deposit. Is this merely a case of irrational behaviour? No.

The potential to "impact" the eventual outcome in a constituency is what drives this "independent candidate" movement. In the 2009 elections, nearly 10 million people collectively voted for 3,793 across 502 None of these 3,793 candidates won. But they together impacted outcomes in 164 A mere 2.5 per cent of all voters impacted the outcomes in more than 30 per cent of all in the 2009 For the purposes of this analysis, if the total number of cast for is greater than the winning margin of the eventual winner, it is categorised as having impacted the eventual outcome. An analysis of the last four reveal a dramatic growth in the number of "impacted" - from 49 to 164. To put this in perspective, the BJP, as the second largest party, secured 116 seats in the 2009 vis-a-vis impacting outcomes in 164 seats.

This is not to argue that the outcomes in each of these 164 "impacted" in the 2009 would have been different, nor is it possible to prove the counterfactual argument that had these not contested, outcomes would have been different. The attempt here is to showcase that a vote cast for an independent candidate has a higher chance of impacting who the eventual winner can be rather than helping that independent candidate actually win the election.

In our system of first-past-the-post, where a candidate with the most number of wins irrespective of the margin of victory or total percentage of secured, splitting an opponent's vote becomes as important as getting a vote for oneself. And this is how for can potentially lead to inadvertent outcomes.

Is it merely a coincidence that the number of are growing rapidly despite their odds of winning, reducing dramatically? Unlikely. Splitting an opponent's vote is an important strategy and can be an effective tool to achieve this. While it is impossible to attribute real motives behind an independent's candidacy, the probability that an independent will influence the eventual outcome is statistically high.

Historian Ramachandra Guha in his poignant description of India's first general of 1952 narrates an incident in Himachal Pradesh about a young woman carrying her bent mother to cast her vote because in her words "at least on that particular day, she felt very important". Many of our neighbours would yearn for this right to vote, a right that our freedom fighters fought for more than 100 years to achieve and leave behind as a permanent legacy. Casting our vote is one of the most important decisions we make as citizens. Amid increasing apathy towards established political parties and politicians, it is very tempting to vent our frustrations by voting for an independent candidate. By doing so, we may unintentionally be aiding the very candidate or political party that we are revolting against.

The author is founding trustee, IndiaSpend - India's first non-profit, data journalism initiative

First Published: Thu, November 28 2013. 21:47 IST