The recent Bihar assembly elections delivered a stunning victory for the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which secured over three-fourths majority by winning 202 of the 243 assembly seats. In stark contrast, the Mahagathbandhan (MGB) was reduced to a mere 35 seats, while smaller parties and independents won the remaining seats, with the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) securing five seats, the Bahujan Samaj Party one, and others winning six seats. Notably, Prashant Kishor's much-hyped Jan Suraj failed to open its account.
The Controversy: More Votes, Fewer Seats?
In the aftermath of this electoral landslide, social media erupted with debates and allegations. Many supporters of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) pointed to what they perceived as a puzzling anomaly: the RJD received more absolute votes and a higher overall vote share than both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (United), yet won significantly fewer seats. Some went as far as to accuse the Election Commission (EC) of facilitating electoral manipulation and cheating.
These are serious allegations that deserve scrutiny. However, when we examine the data carefully, a different picture emerges - one that demonstrates not electoral fraud but the fundamental mathematics of how electoral systems work.
A Misleading Comparison
At first glance, the vote tallies seem to support the conspiracy theories. The RJD garnered an impressive 1.15 crore votes, translating to a 23% overall vote share, winning 25 seats. By comparison, the BJP received 1 crore votes with a 20.08% vote share and 89 seats, while the Janata Dal (United) (JD-U) secured 96.67 lakh votes with a 19.25% vote share, winning 85 seats.
The answer to the RJD mystery lies in understanding a critical factor that these raw numbers obscure: the number of seats contested by each party.
The Real Story
The RJD contested elections in 143 constituencies across Bihar, significantly more than its principal rivals. Both the BJP and the JD(U) contested 101 seats each. So, the RJD contested 1.4 times the seats contested by its rivals. In other words, the BJP-JDU combine contested 30% fewer seats than the RJD. This difference is crucial because when you field candidates in more constituencies, you naturally accumulate more absolute votes, regardless of your actual electoral strength or popularity in individual constituencies.
What truly matters in assessing a party's electoral performance is not the total vote count, but rather the votes received per seat and the contested vote share - that is, the average vote share achieved in the constituencies where the party actually fielded candidates.
Votes Per Seat: The Performance Metric That Matters
When we calculate the average votes received per seat, the narrative changes dramatically. The RJD received an average of just 80,742 votes per constituency contested. In comparison, the BJP secured an average of 99,813 votes per seat, while the JD(U) garnered 95,714 votes per constituency. Even the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), a smaller constituent of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), outperformed the RJD with an average of 89,191 votes per seat.
This metric reveals the true electoral strength of each party. The BJP and the JD(U) were not only more efficient in converting their electoral efforts into votes, but they also demonstrated stronger support in the constituencies where they chose to compete.
Contested Vote Share
It's important to understand the 'Contested Vote Share' here. It refers to the absolute number of votes received by a party in seats contested, divided by total votes polled in those seats
Here, the performance gap becomes even more apparent:
- The RJD achieved a contested vote share of 39.6%
- The BJP recorded a contested vote share of 48.3%
- The JD(U) secured a contested vote share of 46.3%
- Even the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) managed a contested vote share of 43.1%
- These figures demonstrate that in constituencies where they competed, the BJP and the JD(U) were far more popular than the RJD, consistently securing nearly half of all votes cast.
Where The RJD Failed
A deeper analysis of the RJD's performance against different opponents reveals why the party won so few seats despite contesting so many. Of the 143 seats it vied for, the party won only 25. In these victories, it recorded a strong 46.2% vote share compared to 39.6% for the runner-up, with an average winning margin of 6.6 percentage points.
However, the losses tell a more sobering story. In direct contests with the JD(U) across 61 constituencies, the RJD lost 51 seats while winning only nine, with one seat going to others. In these losing battles against the JD(U), the RJD managed only a 37.9% vote share compared to the JD(U)'s 47.7%, resulting in an average loss margin of 9.8 percentage points.
Against the BJP in 51 direct contests, the RJD's performance was similarly disappointing. The BJP won 43 seats, while the RJD secured just five, with three going to others. The RJD's vote share in these contests was 40%, significantly trailing BJP's 49.3%, with an average loss margin of 9.3 percentage points.
Even against smaller NDA constituents like the LJP, the Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM), and the Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM) in 31 constituencies, the RJD struggled. These parties won 20 seats compared to the RJD's 11, with the latter recording only a 37.8% vote share against the opposition's 46.6%.
No Conspiracy, Just Math
The data conclusively demonstrates that there is no mystery or conspiracy behind the RJD's poor performance relative to its overall vote count. The RJD's broader geographic spread resulted in more total votes but insufficient vote concentration in most constituencies to secure victories. In constituency after constituency, voters preferred NDA candidates over RJD representatives. The electoral system worked exactly as designed, converting this preference into seats won.
Rather than pointing to electoral manipulation, the numbers reveal a party that spread its resources too thin, may have contested more seats than its support base could sustain, and failed to match the electoral appeal of its rivals in direct competition.
This election serves as a reminder that in a first-past-the-post system, what matters is not how many votes you win overall, but where you win them and by what margin. The RJD learned this lesson the hard way.
(Amitabh Tiwari is a political strategist and commentator. In his earlier avatar, he was a corporate and investment banker)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
