Conventional wisdom holds that an increase in voter turnout hurts incumbents in Indian elections. This belief has become a central feature of how analysts discuss Indian voter behaviour. Yet there are few systematic analyses of the relationship between turnout and incumbent performance. To fill this gap, we analysed a dataset of elections in India’s 18 major states between 1980 and 2012. Our analyses show that an increase in turnout, relative to the prior election, has no statistically meaningful relationship with three measures of an incumbent government’s electoral performance. While the belief about the anti-incumbent nature of rising turnout is widely held, it does not appear to be supported by the data.
AhujaA., & ChhibberP. (2012). Why the poor vote in India: “If I don’t vote, I am dead to the state.”Studies in Comparative International Development, 47(4), 389–410.
2.
ChakravartyP. (2014, May3). High turnout doesn’t signal a wave. Times of India. Retrieved 2August2016, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/High-turnout-doesnt-signal-a-wave/articleshow/34561305.cms
3.
Firstpost. (2014, April18). Election 2014: Does a high voter turnout mean good news for BJP?. Retrieved 4August2016, from http://www.firstpost.com/politics/election-2014-does-a-high-voter-turnout-mean-good-news-for-bjp-1485317.html
GrofmanB., OwenG., & ColletC. (1999). Rethinking the partisan effects of higher turnout: So what’s the question?Public Choice, 99(3), 357–376.
6.
GuptaP., & PanagariyaA. (2014). Growth and election outcomes in a developing country. Economics and Politics, 26(2), 332–354.
7.
HajnalZ. (2010). America’s uneven democracy: Race, turnout, and representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
HajnalZ., & TrounstineJ. (2005). Where turnout matters: The consequences of uneven turnout in city politics. Journal of Politics, 67(2), 515–535.
9.
HansfordT., & GomezB. T. (2010). Estimating the electoral effects of voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 268–288.
10.
HeathO. (2005). Party systems, political cleavages and electoral volatility in India: A state-wise analysis, 1998–1999. Electoral Studies, 24(2), 177–199.
11.
KapoorM., & RaviS. (2014). Women voters in Indian democracy: A silent revolution. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(12), 63–67.
12.
KashyapS. (1970). The politics of defection: The changing contours of the political power structure in state politics in India. Asian Survey, 10(3), 195–208.
13.
KlašnjaM. (2015). Corruption and the incumbency disadvantage: Theory and evidence. Journal of Politics, 77(4), 928–942.
14.
KlašnjaM. (2016). Increasing rents and incumbency disadvantage. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28(2), 225–265.
KumarS., SardesaiS., & GuptaP. (2013). The weakening of electoral anti-incumbency. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(13), 128–131.
17.
NaigU. (2016, May22). For AIADMK, high jinks over high turnout. Hindu. Retrieved 12September2017, from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/for-aiadmk-high-jinks-over-high-turnout/article8631146.ece
18.
PowellG. B., & WhittenG. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414.
19.
Press Trust of India (2012, December17). Voter turnout in Gujarat gives rise to pro-incumbency factor: Narendra Modi. Retrieved 20August2016, from http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/voter-turnout-in-gujarat-gives-rise-to-proincumbency-factor-narendra-modi/1046603/
20.
QuraishiS. Y. (2014). An undocumented wonder: The making of the great Indian election. Kolkata: Rupa Publications.
21.
RavishankarN. (2009). The cost of ruling: Anti-incumbency in elections. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(10), 92–98.
22.
ShashidharK. (2014, April28). What high voter turnouts mean. Mint. Retrieved 8August2016, from http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/XILImEBUbiIt4MsDmBDbPN/What-high-voter-turnouts-mean.html
23.
ShrinivasanR. (2014, May19). Not how many, but who voted made the difference. Hindu. Retrieved 1August2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/not-how-many-but-who-voted-made-the-difference/article6022959.ece
24.
SnyderRichard (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 93–110.
25.
TantriP. (2014, April21). Column: Is high voter turnout anti-incumbent?Indian Express. Retrieved 6August2016, from http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/column-is-high-voter-turnout-antiincumbent-/1242326/
26.
TrounstineJ. (2013). Turnout and incumbency in local elections. Urban Affairs Review, 49(2), 167–189.
27.
UppalY. (2009). The disadvantaged incumbents: Estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice, 138(1/2), 9–27.
28.
VaishnavM., & SwansonR. (2015). Does good economics make for good politics? Evidence from Indian states. India Review, 14(3), 279–311.
29.
YadavY. (2009, April13). The truth about theories on turnout. Hindu. Retrieved 30July2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/the-truth-about-theories-on-turnout/article305804.ece
30.
YadavY., & PalshikarS. (2009). Between Fortuna and Virtu: Explaining the Congress’ ambiguous victory in 2009. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(39), 33–46.
