After the RJD’s significant defeat in the assembly elections, it was unexpected that Tejashwi Yadav, the INDIA alliance’s chief ministerial candidate for Bihar, would emerge from the polls in a state of disgrace rather than triumph. Despite facing opposition from some allies, Yadav, the son of prominent party leader Lalu Prasad, narrowly secured victory in his seat in Raghopur, a constituency long regarded as a stronghold for the RJD, after initially trailing in the vote count.
Yadav defeated the BJP’s candidate, Satish Kumar. However, in the recent elections, the RJD saw a dramatic drop in its seats from 75 in the 2020 Bihar polls to less than half of that total. Despite this decline, the RJD still achieved the highest vote share of any single party in this election, obtaining 23% of the votes, a slight decrease from 23.11% in the previous election, while fielding 144 candidates.
Vote share refers to the percentage of valid votes that a political party or candidate receives across an election. It acts as an indicator of the party’s overall popularity and support base among voters, though it does not directly correlate to the number of seats won, particularly under India’s First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system. In this system, the candidate with the most votes in each constituency is awarded the seat, even if they do not achieve a majority.
While the FPTP method is straightforward, it often fails to deliver a truly representative outcome, as candidates can secure victory without a majority of votes. For example, in the 2014 elections, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance won 336 seats with only 38.5% of the popular vote. Smaller parties representing specific demographics may also struggle in this system, according to a report by The Hindu.
Despite RJD’s higher vote share, several factors contributed to its failure to convert these votes into seats. In multiple constituencies, RJD candidates garnered significant votes but still fell short against winning NDA candidates. These “wasted” votes—where candidates finished second with 40-45% of the votes—contributed to RJD’s overall tally without translating into victorious seats.
In contrast, the NDA (composed of the BJP, JD(U), and their allies) benefited from a more evenly distributed voter base across Bihar’s diverse demographics, allowing for more narrow but decisive victories across constituencies. This efficient conversion of votes into seats can be traced to the NDA’s broader alliance and better seat-sharing strategy, which minimized fragmentation of votes on their side.
The RJD’s higher vote share also resulted from contesting a larger number of seats compared to the BJP and JD(U), both of which contested in 101 constituencies each. With RJD contesting 144 seats, it garnered votes from even unsuccessful candidates, boosting its overall share, as noted by the Hindustan Times.
In total, RJD received 1,15,46,055 votes, while the BJP secured 1,00,81,143 votes.
Such scenarios are common in FPTP elections. The RJD previously experienced a similar situation in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls in Bihar, where it had the highest vote share but won few seats due to vote splits and concentrations. The NDA’s more cohesive alliance and effective seat-sharing minimized vote fragmentation, placing opposition votes—coming from allies like Congress and Left parties—at a disadvantage.
Key Takeaways:
- High vote share does not guarantee electoral success in FPTP systems.
- Vote fragmentation can significantly influence election outcomes.
- Strategic seat-sharing among alliances can lead to more effective electoral results.
