Atul Thakur / ToI
An analysis of the 2010 results shows that the one sided verdict in which the JD(U)-BJP combine won 206 of the 243 seats against just 25 for the RJD-LJP alliance nevertheless saw a lot of close seat level contests. In fact, the winning candidate got a majority of the votes polled in less than 10% of the seats. BJP won in 12 of these constituencies while JD (U) won 11. There were another 91 constituencies where the winning candidate polled between 40% and 50% of the valid votes. Of these, 47 seats went to the JD (U) while the BJP and RJD won in 32 and 11 such seats respectively.
It is interesting to note that in more than half the seats in a largely bipolar contest the winning candidate got less than 40% of the votes. Indeed, there were 29 constituencies where the winner got less than even 30% of the votes polled. Despite sweeping the elections, the winning candidates of the JD(U)-BJP alliance were more or less evenly distributed across all these ranges. more
An analysis of the 2010 results shows that the one sided verdict in which the JD(U)-BJP combine won 206 of the 243 seats against just 25 for the RJD-LJP alliance nevertheless saw a lot of close seat level contests. In fact, the winning candidate got a majority of the votes polled in less than 10% of the seats. BJP won in 12 of these constituencies while JD (U) won 11. There were another 91 constituencies where the winning candidate polled between 40% and 50% of the valid votes. Of these, 47 seats went to the JD (U) while the BJP and RJD won in 32 and 11 such seats respectively.
It is interesting to note that in more than half the seats in a largely bipolar contest the winning candidate got less than 40% of the votes. Indeed, there were 29 constituencies where the winner got less than even 30% of the votes polled. Despite sweeping the elections, the winning candidates of the JD(U)-BJP alliance were more or less evenly distributed across all these ranges. more
No comments:
Post a Comment