Understanding Bihar Elections: How Electoral Mathematics Explains RJD's Defeat Despite Higher Vote Share

The Bihar assembly elections recently concluded with a remarkable victory for the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which captured an overwhelming 202 seats out of 243, securing more than three-fourths majority. In contrast, the Mahagathbandhan (MGB) suffered a significant defeat, winning only 35 seats. The remaining seats were distributed among smaller political entities, with AIMIM claiming five seats, BSP securing one, and independents and other parties winning six seats. Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraj party failed to win any seats despite substantial pre-election attention.

Following this electoral outcome, social media platforms became battlegrounds for heated discussions about an apparent paradox: the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) received more absolute votes and a higher overall vote percentage than both the BJP and JD(U), yet secured dramatically fewer seats. Some RJD supporters went so far as to suggest electoral manipulation by the Election Commission (EC).

These allegations warrant examination, but a thorough analysis of the electoral data reveals a straightforward explanation rooted in electoral mathematics rather than any conspiracy.

At first glance, the vote statistics appear to support skepticism. The RJD accumulated 1.15 crore votes with a 23% overall vote share but won only 25 seats. Meanwhile, the BJP received 1 crore votes (20.08% vote share) and won 89 seats, while JD(U) secured 96.67 lakh votes (19.25% vote share) and claimed 85 seats.

The key to understanding this apparent discrepancy lies in a critical factor: the number of constituencies contested by each party. The RJD fielded candidates in 143 constituencies, significantly more than both the BJP and JD(U), which contested 101 seats each. By contesting approximately 40% more seats than its main rivals, the RJD naturally accumulated more total votes across the state.

To accurately assess electoral performance, we must examine votes per seat contested and the contested vote share, which reveals the average performance in constituencies where parties actually competed.

When calculating votes per contested seat, the narrative shifts dramatically. The RJD averaged only 80,742 votes per constituency contested. In comparison, the BJP secured an average of 99,813 votes per seat and JD(U) gathered 95,714 votes per constituency. Even the smaller LJP outperformed the RJD with an average of 89,191 votes per contested seat.

The contested vote share—calculated by dividing a party's votes in the seats it contested by the total votes polled in those constituencies—further clarifies the situation. The RJD achieved a contested vote share of 39.6%, while the BJP and JD(U) recorded substantially higher figures at 48.3% and 46.3% respectively. Even the LJP managed a contested vote share of 43.1%.

These metrics demonstrate that in the constituencies where they competed, NDA parties consistently outperformed the RJD, securing nearly half of all votes cast.

Analyzing the RJD's performance against specific opponents provides additional insight. In the 25 constituencies where the RJD won, it averaged a 46.2% vote share compared to the runner-up's 39.6%, with an average winning margin of 6.6 percentage points.

However, the party's losses tell a more revealing story. In 61 direct contests with JD(U), the RJD lost 51 seats while winning only nine (with one seat going to others). In these losses, the RJD managed just a 37.9% vote share against 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 won merely five seats while the BJP claimed 43 (with three going to others). The RJD's vote share in these contests was 40%, significantly behind the BJP's 49.3%, with an average loss margin of 9.3 percentage points.

Even against smaller NDA constituents like LJP, HAM, and RLM across 31 constituencies, the RJD won only 11 seats compared to their 20 victories. The RJD's vote share in these contests was 37.8% against the opposition's 46.6%.

The data conclusively shows no conspiracy behind the RJD's electoral results. The party's wider geographic presence resulted in more total votes but insufficient vote concentration in individual constituencies to secure victories. In constituency after constituency, voters simply preferred NDA candidates over RJD representatives. The electoral system functioned as designed, translating this preference into seat distribution.

This election underscores a fundamental principle of the first-past-the-post electoral system: what matters is not overall vote count but strategic vote concentration across constituencies. The RJD appears to have spread its resources too thin, contesting more seats than its support base could effectively sustain, and ultimately failed to match its rivals' targeted appeal in direct electoral contests.

(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