View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by European Scientific Journal (European Scientific Institute)

European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION,KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE

AND PRACTICES : A CASE STUDY OF UTTAR PRADESH
ASSEMBLY ELECTION 2012 (INDIA)

Bupinder Zutshi, PhD

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Abstract
The study of voter turnout rates, its composition, characteristics, Knowledge, Attitude,
Behavior, Beliefs and Practices (KABBP) is an integral part of election management by the
Election Commissions throughout the World. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer-Uttar
Pradesh has taken up a Systematic Voters' Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP)
interventions and programmebefore the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections in 2012, to
promote participation of the voter in the electoral process. The present study examines the
voter turnout rates across gender groups, age groups, income groups, occupational groups and
education levels in Uttar Pradesh state of India. It also attempts to assess knowledge, attitude,
practices and satisfaction level of voters about various services and facilities of electoral
process/election management and its consequences on voter turnout rates.
The study indicates voter turnout rate of 59.48% in 2012, as compared to 46.07% in 2007 and
47.79% in General Election of 2009. The mean and median voter turnout rates recorded
during 1951-2009 has been 50. I %, and 50.5% respectively,with Standard Deviation of 9.4
for the same period. However significant variations in the voter turnout rates were recorded
among micro regions within same administrative constituency due to demographic, cultural,
socio-economic and institutional management measures. The results point out significant
impact in voter turnout rates after interventions under SVEEP were initiated by the Election
Commission in 2010. The study also depicts that there is lot of gap between what the voters
‗should know‘ and what they ‗actually know‘ in important areas like registration of voter list,
making of Elector Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), Polling Station location, use of Electronic
Voting Machines (EVMs), do‘s & don‘ts with regard to model code of conduct. The results
point out that persistent voter education with the kind of seriousness and depth, it deserves by
the Election Management bodies should be given due and strong emphasis.

Keywords:Electoral participation, Voter Turnout Rate, Voter Knowledge, Education, and

Communication, Election management

Context and Objectives

The study of voter turnout rates, its composition, characteristics, Knowledge, Attitude,
Behavior, Beliefs and Practices (KABBP) is an integral part of election management by the
Election Commissions throughout the World. Thus voter‘s participation and turnout rates are
widely studied phenomenon in the comparative politics literature. Scholars have studies voter
turnout rates and have pronounced that ―Political equality and political participation are both
basic democratic ideals‖ (Lijphart, 1997: 1) in flourishing democracies worldwide. Several
studies have also indicated that changes in voter turnout rates can affect electoral outcomes
and support for a particular party (Radcliff, 1994, 1995; Erikson, 1995a, 1995b). While voter
turnout has generally been declining in most Western democracies, it has actually increased
in India since its first elections in 1951. This upward trend has been highlighted by scholars

107
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

as an important factor in the sustenance of Indian democracy, where citizen‘s participation

has improved in increasing numbers to choose their governments, election after election
(Yadav, 2000).
In case of India, voter turnouts have been high in comparison to several Western
democracies, despite the presence of a large illiterate and economically backward population.
Scholars have pointed out that ―The deprived seem to have greater faith in India‘s elections
than the advantaged‖ (Varshney, 2000:20). Since electoral outcomes have important policy
implications, it is vital to understand the degree and reasons for variation in the voter turnout
rates among different spatial geographical regions as well as among different composition
and social and economic characteristics groups of voters, so that focused target is given to
encourage them to strengthen democratic value by excising their duty of franchise.

Factors Affecting Voters Turnout

High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable (Franklin, Mark, 1999, 2001,
2002). Several models have been developed by scholars for voter turnout differentials across
regions, political governance systems, community composition and characteristics and
existing institutional frameworks. ―Rational Voter Model‖ ( Downs 1957), has been a
dominant theory of voter participation in the literature for a long time, and has been extended
theoretically and tested empirically by many scholars (Buchanan &Tullock, 1962; Riker
&Ordeshook, 1968; Tullock, 1971; Cox &Munger, 1989; Aldrich, 1993; Feddersen, 2004).
The rational choice model focuses on the cost–benefit analysis of the voting decision.
According to Riker and Ordeshook (1968), since a single vote has virtually no effect on the
election outcome, a voter cannot be expected to vote for gaining just material benefits.
Instead, the only rational reason to vote is to gain benefits such as expressing an opinion or
fulfilling a duty and participate in the governance system. Thus governance trust in voter is an
essential requirement for higher voter turnout. Some scholars explain the voting decision
based on a habit, which in turn depends on factors such as their social status and education,
income, ethnicity, rural/urban character and ease of voting. Verba and Nie (1972) put forward
a model of electoral participation based on education and profession, and studies such as
Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980), and Parry et al. (1992) use this resource model in their
studies of voter turnout. The mobilization model complements the resource model and
focuses on how the various parties, interest groups and candidates mobilize people to vote
(Rosenstone& Hansen, 1993). Low turnout elections have often been referred to as low
mobilization elections, and mobilization is a mechanism that works by way of both rationality
and socialization (Franklin, 2004). An important variable in the turnout literature focuses on
the competitiveness of the elections. According to Blais (2000: 60), ―the verdict is crystal
clear with respect to closeness: closeness has been found to increase turnout … There are
strong reasons to believe that, as predicted by rational choice theory, more people vote when
election is close‖.
Studies have indicated that in each country, some parts of society are more likely to
vote than others. In high-turnout countries, these differences tend to be limited, but in low
turnout nations the differences between voters and non-voters can be quite marked. These
differences appear to persist over time; in fact, the strongest predictor of individual turnout is
whether or not one voted in the previous election. (Fowler, James H. 2006). Much of the
impetus to vote comes from a sense of civic duty, which takes time and certain social
conditions to develop that, can take decades to develop. Scholars have found ethnicity, caste,
income, education levels, rural/urban character of electorates have affected voter turnouts.
But these factors do not have straight forward linkages. As education levels are found to be
closely linked with voter turnout in developed societies, while they are in reverse linked in
South Asian Countries especially in India. The dominant view in the existing studies points

108
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

toward the primacy of institutional variables in affecting the variation in turnout across
nations, although some authors also include sociological variables as well as economic
variables in their analyses.However the factors affecting voter turnout can be classified as
follows:
Multiple factor affects voter turnout rates. These factors are institutional management,
cultural, social, economic, laws and governance. Making easier rules and laws for registration
of eligible voter has helped in increasing registration of high numbers of eligible voters in
voter lists, which naturally result in higher turnouts. Rolling registration (Registering eligible
voters as closer to the date of polling) has helped in increasing eligible voter lists, as updating
is regular, without creating barriers of cutoff dates. Online registration of eligible voter in the
voter list has also improved voter turnouts. Creating awareness by Election Commission
through mass media, advertisements and other intervention have increased eligible voters
registration in voter lists. Simply making it easier for candidates to stand through
easier nomination rules is believed to increase voting. Conversely, adding barriers, such as a
separate registration process, can suppress turnout. Other factors include ease of voting is a
factor in voter turnout. Increasing the number of possible voting locations, lowering the
average time voters have to spend waiting in line, or declaring holidays on voting day for
workers has helped in increased voter turnouts. Many countries have looked into internet
voting as a possible solution for low voter turnout. Similarly Voter fatigue can lower turnout.
If there are many elections in close succession, voter turnout will decrease as the public tires
of participating. Holding multiple elections at the same time can increase turnout.Voter
suppression affects voter turnout because citizens are prevented from voting. Prevention
could be for legal, racial, or political reasons. Often the aim of suppression is that the people
in power remain in power. In other cases, supporters of candidates who cannot get elected
through fair means or have their nominated candidature listed on the ballot paper often self-
suppress in protest. Voter also perceives security threat which suppresses their voting rights.
Not all voters who arrive at the polls necessarily cast ballots. Some may be turned away
because they are ineligible as they do not find their names in the voter list or do not possess
accepted identification cards , some may be turned away improperly by opposing candidates
due to lack of security personnel.

Lack of Trust in Governance

Early studies (Gosnell, 1927) assume that turnout depends on the character of the
election itself, rather than on the voters. Thus, for example, lower turnout is expected where
parties do not clearly communicate their policies to the voters, and a high turnout is expected
when policies are well presented, or where electoral competition is expected to be close.
Political parties on increase in turnout focus less on the characteristics of the elections, and
more on the motivation of the individual voter and on parties‘ efforts to mobilize support for
its policies through unfair means. However generally trust in government, interest in politics,
beliefs in efficacy of voting, political parties‘ efforts to motivate electorates, suitability of
candidate have been other factors affecting voter turnouts.
Literature focusing on determinants of turnout in India is limited, and consists mainly
of the works by Yadav (2000), McMillan (2005), Ahuja, A and Pradeep Chibber
(2012),Diwakar, R (2008). Yadav (2000) disaggregates turnout statistics in India in terms of
regions and prominent social groups to understand the changing nature of political
participation in India in the 1990s. Yadav‘s key thesis is that although overall turnout figures
have not increased dramatically in India, yet the composition of those who vote has
undergone a major change. He found socially underprivileged- the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have increased voter turnouts but the same has not been true of other
disadvantaged groups like minorities and women. He points out that India is perhaps the

109
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

country where voter turnout rates for underprivileged community is higher than most
privileged groups. He also finds that voters in rural areas are more likely to vote than those in
urban areas. Scholars have also analyzed that young voters and women have higher voter
turnout rates especially during last decade.
A lot of attention has been paid to the decline in voter turnout rates in the World
democracies, and scholars have debated the reasons and the effects of this decline. Declining
voter turnout tends have been associated with citizens‘ lack of interest in the democratic
process which dilutes the legitimacy of the governance. Scholars have also related the decline
in voter turnout to disenfranchisement of socially and economically backward groups, and
questioned whether democracy in such a scenario is truly representative. In such situations it
is imperative on the Election Commission and political parties to encourage electorates to
participate in the election processes by inculcating KABBP among the voters.

Objectives of the Present Study

 To evaluate the voter turnout rates during Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election 2012 and
analyse the outcomes of voter turnout across gender groups, age groups, income groups,
occupational groups and education level.
 To assess knowledge and satisfaction level of voters about various facts of electoral
process/election management.
 To suggest for strategic communication with the voter in order to improve registration
and voter turnout.

Research Methodology
The present study is based on both secondary and primary sources of data. Secondary
data was collected from Election Commission of India (ECI) record like voter turnout during
Assembly Election 2012 for Uttar Pradesh state of India.. Primary survey was conducted
during July to December 2013 in Uttar Pradesh. A total of 20,154 households from rural areas
(10,585 households from High turnout polling booth areas and 9,569 households from Low
turnout polling booth areas) and 5,207 households from urban areas (2193 households from
High turnout polling booth areas and 3014 households from Low turnout polling booth areas)
were stratified and randomly selected for the detailed survey from the 380 Assembly
segments. These stratified randomly selected household recorded 86,720 eligible voters (aged
18 year and above). Thus the survey covered 86,720 eligible voters representing 0.068
percent of total electorate of the state for the survey. Eligible voters aged 18 years and above
recorded per household were 3.57 for rural areas and 2.83 for urban areas. 43,171 eligible
voters were recoded from High turnout polling booth areas and 43,549 eligible voters were
recorded from Low turnout polling booth areas. However only 62,735 eligible voters
responded for the survey (30,973 voters from High turnout polling booth areas and 31,762
voters from Low turnout polling booth areas) and others were reluctant to provide detailed
information required for the survey. (Refer Table No.1)
Table No. 1 Sample Coverage -KABBP Survey -2013, Uttar Pradesh
Total Households
Total Eligible Voters found/ Total Eligible Voters Responded
Covered for
Covered for Survey during Survey
Sample Survey
Rural Urban Rural Urban
Rural Urban
M F M F M F M F
High turnout
Polling Booth 10585 2193 17962 19088 2901 3220 13058 13703 1985 2227
Areas
Low Turnout
Polling Booth 9569 3014 16586 18341 4175 4447 12125 13133 3061 3443
Areas

110
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Both Combined 20154 5207 34548 37429 7076 7667 25183 26836 5046 5670
Source: Sample Survey Conducted 2013

Interventions by Election Commission of India (ECI)

Election Commission of India (ECI) realized the importance of infusing greater vigor
for high voter turnout rates for healthy democratic processes. The theme chosen for the
Diamond Jubilee Year of the ECI in 2010 was ―Greater Participation for a Stronger
Democracy‖. ECI realized that it needed to reach out to complete electoral rolls, urban
apathy, women‘s participation deficit and youth indifference to the electoral. It felt that
educating voters and effective management of election machinery holds the key to motivate
voters for greater participation. (Election Commission of India- ECI -2013, Compendium of
Rules) The Commission thus decided to bring Voter education to the center table of election
management and allocated it necessary attention and resources. Several measures were
directed by ECI to meet this objective. Some of the measures taken were
 Improve participation of all sections of the electorate, awareness levels needed to be
enhanced, especially amongst the newly eligible youth, the uneducated, residents of
inaccessible and remote areas, socially and economically weaker/ deprived sections of
society.
 ECI envisaged systematic, strategic and scientific processes in understanding the voter
participation and engagement dynamics so as to facilitate the processes of increased and
informed participation.
 Effective partnerships with educational institutions like Universities, Colleges, Senior
Secondary Schools, and Vocational Institutes etc. were built, in order to educate the students
on subjects related to democratic electoral practices and participation.
 Large segments/ sections of the electorate who were not covered by the formal
educational system or those who had developed an apathetic attitude or those who are
physically cut-off from the mainstream due to various reasons were brought under the ambit
of focused voter education. Such segments/ sections were reached through civil society
organizations, special agencies of volunteers, govt. departments working for the welfare of
deprived and vulnerable sections or marginalized groups etc.

Uttar Pradesh Elections 2012, Voter Turnout Rates

The Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election 2012 recorded voter turnout of 59.48% as
compared to 46.07% in Assembly Election 2007 and 47.79% in General Election of 2009.
The mean voter turnout for Uttar Pradesh Elections (both assembly as well as General
elections) from 1951- 2009 has been 50. I %, while median turnout rates for the same period
was 50.5% with Standard Deviation of 9.4 for the same period. Thus significant increase has
been recorded in the voter turnout in Uttar Pradesh during last five decades. The results point
out significant impact in voter turnout rates after interventions under SVEEP were initiated by
the Election Commission of Uttar Pradesh in 2010.
However significant variations in the turnout rates for Assembly Election 2012 were
observed geographically (Map No. 1). The map indicates Eastern Uttar Pradesh recorded
lower voter turnout rates as compared to Central and North-Western Districts of Uttar
Pradesh. The districts of Kanpur, Pratapgarh, Jaunpur, Azamgarh, Ballia, Deoria, Gorakhpur,
SantKabir Nagar, SantRavidas Nagar, Siddharthnagar and Balrampur recoded least turnout
rates, while Districts of Saharanpur, JyotiPhule Nagar, Philibhit, Sultanpur and Barabanki
recorded higher turnout rates.
Gender wise voter turnout rate for Assembly Elections 2012 was 58.82% for male
voters and 60.29% for women voters. District variations for gender voter turnout rates were
also recoded. Male voter turnouts depict very low rates in majority of Districts in Eastern

111
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Uttar Pradesh and high turnout rates in Central, North-West and South Districts. (Refer Map
No. 2). Female voter turnout rates were higher in North-West Districts and some pockets of
South and Eastern Districts (Refer Map No. 3). Thus voter turnout indicates strong regional
influences of political parties and economic developmental issues.
Regional variation at micro level within the Districts were also observed in the voter
turnout rates indicating multiple factors play important role in determining voter turnout rates.
District wise Voter turnout, separately for District as well as for High Polling Booth and Low
Polling Booth within the District, depict variations in voter turnout rates. The table indicates
that voter turnout for polling booths within the same districts has been as high as 75% and as
low as 45%. The multiple factors within the same District determine voter turnout rates.
These multiple factors could be institutional (ease of registering voters in voter list, location
of polling booths, security arrangements at the polling booth, services at polling booth like
time taken to cast vote), demographic and social and economic characteristics of voters,
motivational encouragement by Election Commission, political parties and candidates and
suitability perception of candidate by voter.
Map No 1

112
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Map No. 2 Map No.3

Thus the results clearly indicate that although significant improvement has been
recorded in voter turnout rates in Uttar Pardesh during last one decade but regional variation
still exists at micro, meso and macro level with the state. A combination of interventions by
Election Commission has shown positive results which require to be expanded or even
strengthened through participatory methods.

Voter Turnout (Age Groups)

The sample survey results for Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2012 also confirm
that voter turnout rates were higher among younger voters aged 18-35 years as compared to
voters aged 35 + years. These results even hold true for both gender groups for both rural and
urban areas. In case of rural areas the gaps in the voter turnout among the two age groups was
5 percent point both for men and women respectively, while the gap between the two age
groups was 4 percent point for women and 5 percent point for men respectively in case of
urban areas. The variation in the voter turnout among the two age groups was also recorded
for both High voter turnout and Low voter turnout areas.

113
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Voter Turnout Rates – Income Groups

The survey indicates that economically disadvantaged groups also tend to have higher
voter turnout rates, as respondents in lower income groups recorded high voter turnout rates
across both gender groups in both rural and urban areas 149. Lower income group voters feel
that a support to particular candidate/ party candidate might turn their fortunes as such
candidates/ parties also give allurements and promise freebies in the election campaigning
period.

Voter Turnout Rates – Education Levels

Education levels of voters also seem to be correlated with voter turnout rates.
Contrary to the Western democracies model, where more educated turnout in large numbers
for voting, the situation was different in case of Uttar Pradesh. Voter turnout rates for
illiterate men and women were higher than the educated men and women both in case of rural
and urban areas. However with SVEEP interventions by Election Commission, the trend has
improved as with more awareness and better services even educated voters now are of the
opinion that voting for better candidates will improve good governance.

149
The income groups considered was those having annual income of Indian Rupees (1 lakh Indian Rupees is
equal to Indian Rupees 100,000 ( US$ 1750 )

114
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Voter Turnout Rates – Occupation Groups

The results of voter turnout among students and other occupational groups indicate
mixed results as students tend to have higher voter turnout rates followed by unemployed
youths, farmers and low class labourers. The voter turnout rates were lower for government
employees and voters engaged in their own business activities. On the whole the proportion
of voter turnout rates across all occupational groups was lower in case of urban areas as
compared to the rural areas. Women farmers in rural areas recorded lower voter turnout rates
compared to their men farmer counterparts in rural areas. Unemployed men and women also
recorded higher voter turnout rates, depicting that they have hope as candidates/ party
manifestoes encourage them to vote and give them hopes for better greener pastures if they
are voted into power.

Registered Voters in Electoral Rolls

The survey results indicate that in spite of several positive interventions initiated by
Election Commission, only 76% eligible voter have registered in the voter lists in rural areas
and only 77% eligible voter were registered as voters in urban areas with marginal variations
in registration among males and females. Upon quizzed about the reasons for not getting
registered in electoral rolls, a significant number of respondents who were not registered
(both men/ women residing in rural and urban areas in high/low voter turnout areas) reasons
such as, lack of knowledge of electoral rolls/ voter list, lack of knowledge of age for
registering as voter in voter list, lack of valid identification documents, lack of knowledge of
places where to get registered, stiff dates fixed for registration period, perception of difficult
registration process and shortage of time.
Making easier rules and laws for registration of eligible voter will help in increasing
registration numbers of eligible voters in voter lists, which naturally will result in higher
turnout rates. Rolling registration (Registering eligible voters as closer to the date of polling)
has helped in increasing eligible voter lists in many countries, as updating is regular, without
creating barriers of cutoff dates. Online registration of eligible voter in the voter list has also
improved voter turnouts. Creating awareness by Election Commission through mass media,
advertisements and other intervention have increased eligible voters registration in voter lists.

115
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Demotivating Factors for Voter Turnout Rates

The single most factor for demotivating voter turnout rates was name not on the
electoral rolls and lack of documents like appropriate ID cards and voter slips for voting.
Other demotivating factors include electoral malpractices, lack of faith in the political system
and in political parties. Significantly 7% respondents also cited inappropriate candidates in
the fray as demotivating factor. Some of the institutional management issues were also stated
as demotivating factors like polling station not appropriately located, long queue taking too
much of time and security measures at the polling stations.

Motivating Factors for Higher Voter Turnout Rates

A majority of electorate who participated in the voting say that they are motivated to
vote as they see it as their duty/ right in democratic processes. Other motivating factors
narrated by respondents were support for particular candidate/ candidates of particular party,
influence by family and community member. In the wake of several interventions under
SVEEP program made by ECI it was expected that respondents would be motivated to vote in
large number, which has actually happened but only 8% respondents indicated role of ECI for
their motivation to vote. Hence more efforts need to be taken by ECI to create awareness for
higher turnout rates. It is interesting that in spite of media projection of threat and coercion to
vote only 8% reported threat as demotivating factor.

Recall about Election Commission SVEEP Campaign

About 65% respondents recalled that they have observed and witnessed a campaign
launched by the Election Commission with regards to electoral process knowledge, and
activities associated to increasing voter turnout rates. The recall rate was higher in rural areas
as compared to urban areas. There was huge gap in the recall rate point percentage between

116
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

rural areas (67%) and urban areas (48%). Marginal variations were observed in the recall of
campaign between men and women. The proportion of recall rate among high voter turn areas
was much higher than in case of low voter turnout rates. It thereby signifying the importance
of campaign conducted by Election Commission under SVEEP initiative.

In the wake of several interventions under SVEEP program made by ECI it was
expected that respondents would be motivated to vote in large number, which has actually
happened but only 8% respondents indicated role of ECI for their motivation to vote. Hence
more efforts need to be taken by ECI to create awareness for higher turnout rates. It is
interesting that in spite of media projection of threat and coercion to vote only 8% reported
threat as demotivating factor. The satisfaction level at the polling booth center in terms of
services, functions and facilities were appreciated by voters. 73% respondents were satisfied
with the services provided at the polling booths. Marginal variations were observed by
respondents for both high and low voter turnout areas in terms of satisfaction level of services
at polling booths. However high proportion of respondents from urban areas expressed that
services need to be upgraded and improved as compared to respondents from rural areas.

There is lot of gap between what the voters ‗should know‘ and what they ‗actually
know‘ in important areas like registration, making of Elector Photo Identity Cards (EPIC/ and
the acceptance of other identity proofs for voting, Polling Station location, use of EVMs,
timings of the poll, do‘s & don‘ts with regard to Model Code of Conduct. ECI requires
making available this knowledge pool with a sense of urgency. Experience showed that even
greater awareness does not necessarily get converted into greater participation, thus along
with generating awareness necessary steps should be taken on the voting day to ensure
implementation of the knowledge imparted to voters. Persistent voter education with the kind
of seriousness and depth it deserves by the election management bodies should be given due
and strong emphasis.

117
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Conclusion
The study points there is high degree of voter turnout and high degree of satisfaction
especially after the SVEEP programme. However the study also found, lack of information
about process amongst unregistered voters,low levels of awareness about ECI campaigns, a
significant proportion of non-registered eligible voter in the electoral rolls and exclusion of
specific communities, socio-economic groups from voter turnout. Major threats are
perception of cumbersome documentation and lack of knowledge for registration in voter
lists, lack of interest due to mal-practices, poor candidates and trust deficit with political
parties/ candidates and governance, Frequent polling. The opportunities from ECI campaign
shows, voters perceive voting as their right/duty, the perception that facilities and services at
polling booths are satisfactory and there is scope of betterment of facilities at polling stations.
There is Increase in voter turnout percentage among poor, disadvantaged and marginalized
communities and section especially women, scheduled caste/ scheduled tribes population.
However the study points out that there is a need to strengthen electorate knowled, education
and communication and Election Commission must revise constantly electoral rolls and
efforts should be made for inclusion of on-line registration.

References:
Ahuja, A and Pradeep Chibber (2012). Why the Poor Vote in India: ―If I Don‘t Vote, I Am
Dead to the State‖Studies in Comparative International Development© Springer.
Blais, Andre (2000).To Vote or Not To Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice
(Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press).
Buchanan, John &Tullock, George (1962).The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of
Constitutional Democracy (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cox, Gary W. &Munger, M. C. (1989).―Closeness, expenditures and turnout in the 1982 US
houseelections‖, American Political Science Review, 83(1), pp. 217–230.
Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row).
Diwakar, R (2008). ―Voter Turnout in the Indian States: An Empirical Analysis‖ Journal of
Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 18, No. 1, 75–100
Election Commission of India- ECI (2013).Systematic Voters‟ Education and Electoral
Participation (SVEEP), Compendium of Instructions.
Erikson, R. (1995a).―State turnout and presidential voting: a closer look‖, American Politics
Quarterly, 23, pp. 387–396.
Erikson, R. (1995b).―Pooling and statistical control: a rejoinder to Radcliff‖, American
Politics Quarterly,23, pp. 404–408.
Feddersen, Timothy J. (2004).―Rational choice theory and the paradox of not voting‖,
Journal of Economic, Perspectives, 18(1), pp. 99–112.
Fowler, James H. (2006). "Habitual Voting and Behavioral Turnout," Journal of Politics 68
(2): 335–344.
Franklin, Mark. N. (1999). "Electoral Engineering and Cross National Turnout
Differences." British Journal of Political Science,29, pp 205-216
Franklin, Mark N. (2001) ―The dynamics of electoral participation, in: Laurence Leduc,
Richard Niemi& Pippa Norris (eds) Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global
Perspective (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Franklin, Mark (2002).―The voter turnout puzzles‖, AnaliseSocia, 38, pp. 321–338.
Translation into Portugese of a 2002 conference paper presented at the Fulbright Brainstorm
Conference on Voter Turnout, held in Lisbon, Portugal, February 2002.
Gosnell, Harold F. (1927).Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

118
 European Scientific Journal September 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition Vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Gupta, D. (2004). An analysis of Indian elections, Appendix D. Australia South Asia Research
Centre, Australian National University.Retrieved 2008-11-20.
Lijphart, Arend (1997). "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved
Dilemma." American Political Science Review. vol. 91 (March 1997): 1–14. p. 12
McMillan, Alistair (2005).Standing at the Margins: Representation and Electoral
Reservation in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Parry, G., Moyser, G. & Day, N. (1992).Political Participation and Democracy in Britain
(New York: Cambridge University Press).
Radcliff, Benjamin (1992).―The welfare state, turnout and the economy: a comparative
analysis‖, AmericanPolitical Science Review, 86(2), pp. 444–454.
Radcliff, Benjamin (1994).―Turnout and the democratic vote‖, American Politics Quarterly,
22, pp. 259–276.
Radcliff, Benjamin (1995) ―Turnout and the vote revisited: a reply to Erikson‖, American
Politics Quarterly, 23, pp. 397–403.
Riker, William H. &Ordeshook, Peter C. (1968).―A theory of the calculus of voting‖,
American Political Science Review, 62, pp. 25–42.
Rosenstone, Steven J. & Hansen, John Mark (1993).Mobilisation, Participation and
Democracy in America (New York: Macmillan).
Tullock, Gordon (1971).―Adam Smith and the prisoners‘ dilemma‖, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 100 (Supplement), pp. 1073–1081
Varshney, Ashutosh (2000).―Is India becoming more democratic‖?, The Journal of Asian
Studies, 59(1), pp. 3–25.
Verba, Sidney &Nie, Norman H. (1972).―Participation in America‖: Political Democracy and
Social Inequality (New York: Harper & Row).
Wolfinger, Raymond E. &Rosenstone, Steven J. (1980).Who Votes? (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press).
Yadav, Yogendra (2000).―Understanding the second democratic upsurge‖, in: Francine
Frankel et al. (eds) Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 120–145.

119