Understanding Bihar’s mandate in the context of proportional representation

By Vivek Sakpal 

Election analysis in India often centres on caste arithmetic, campaign themes, pre-election welfare announcements, and the personality and communication skills of political leaders, with newer debates around vote manipulation and vote buying. Social media adds another layer, where “expert opinions” are frequently shaped by the content creator’s own biases. Influencers amplify secondary information and package it as insight for their audiences.

Bihar’s reputation for high political literacy meant that, after the 2024 General Election, analysts were especially focused on its Assembly verdict and its implications for national politics. Every party enters an election with a core votebank and a floating votebank, but the total vote share rarely translates proportionately into seats under the First Past the Post (FPTP) system. Digging into the numbers is essential to understand what voters actually expressed and how effectively political parties managed the ground battle.

India follows the British legacy of FPTP, but applying the same vote-share data to a Proportional Representation (PR) model generates a sharply different picture. The table below presents a comparison of FPTP seats and hypothetical PR seats in the 243-member Bihar Assembly (data from the ECI website).

- BJP – 89 FPTP seats, 20.08% votes, 49 PR seats

- JDU – 85 FPTP seats, 19.25% votes, 47 PR seats

- RJD – 25 FPTP seats, 23% votes, 56 PR seats

- LJP (RV) – 19 FPTP seats, 4.97% votes, 12 PR seats

- INC – 6 FPTP seats, 8.71% votes, 21 PR seats

- AIMIM – 5 FPTP seats, 1.85% votes, 4 PR seats

- HAMS – 5 FPTP seats, PR 0

- RSHTLKM – 4 FPTP seats, PR 0

- CPI ML – 2 FPTP seats, 2.84% votes, 7 PR seats

- IIP – 1 FPTP seat, PR 0

- CPI(M) – 1 FPTP seat, 0.6% votes, 1 PR seat

- BSP – 1 FPTP seat, 1.62% votes, 4 PR seats

- CPI – 0 FPTP seats, 0.74% votes, 2 PR seats

- AAP – 0 FPTP seats, 0.3% votes, 1 PR seat

- NCP – 0 FPTP seats, 0.03% votes, 0 PR seats

- NOTA – 0 FPTP seats, 1.18% votes, 3 PR seats

- Others – 0 FPTP seats, 14% votes, 34 PR seats

If we regroup the parties into the two major alliances, the hypothetical PR outcome shows the NDA (BJP + JDU + LJP RV) at 108 seats and the MGB (RJD + INC + Left parties) at 85. Even under PR, the NDA would need support from smaller regional groups or independents to form a majority.

A closer look at constituencies with margins below 1,000 votes highlights the limitations of FPTP: Agiaon (95), Bakhtiarpur (981), Balrampur (389), Bodh Gaya (881), Chanpatia (602), Dhaka (178), Forbesganj (221), Jehanabad (793), Nabinagar (112), Ramgarh (30), and Sandesh (27). In Sandesh, the winning margin is just 0.03%. Analysts can interpret these results through lenses such as caste, independents, spoiler candidates, or “B-teams”, but the core fact remains that the top two candidates often receive nearly identical support. The system, not the voter, produces these distortions.

The Bihar verdict reflects an electorate that delivered a balanced mandate rather than a decisive endorsement of any one alliance or leader. Both major fronts have the opportunity to form a government, but only with the support of smaller parties and independents. This dynamic can act as a check on larger parties, nudging governance toward broader development priorities and greater accountability—an outcome that aligns with the idea of a genuinely development-focused Bihar.

The Law Commission of India’s 170th Report (1999) recommended reforms to make elections more representative and explored the Mixed Member Proportional Model. Several former Election Commissioners have publicly supported PR after retirement. When the Bihar results are viewed through a proportional lens, they reveal a greater alignment between voter intent and legislative representation.

This analysis excludes factors such as Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, allegations of vote theft, or identity-based voting patterns involving caste, gender, religion, or age. These undoubtedly affect outcomes, but their impact is amplified by the structure of FPTP itself. Under a proportional system, these distortions would be far less significant.

India’s political class understands the implications of PR, but reforms remain absent. The country celebrates being the world’s largest democracy, yet cannot confidently claim to be its most representative one.

---

This a revised version of article distributed by Dalits Media Watch