Evidence of Voter Switching Behavior in Indian Electorate

India is celebrating the establishment of robust and vibrant democracy. The country has begun a month-long voting process for the composition of the 15th term of the Lok Sabha -- Indian parliament. Over 700 million Indians are eligible to vote, and over 300 million voters are likely to be citizens with household income of less than $2 (US dollar) per day. Almost 60 percent of the electorate is expected to express its preference, and the ballots are printed in at least 25 different languages in different parts of the country.

Time and again, Indian electorate has shown resilience and maturity. The aspirations of the Indian citizens has been rising rapidly, and no political party or grouping is able to (and can) keep pace with such rising expectations. Therefore, a natural outcome has been discontent of the Indian electorate with the ruling political grouping.

Over the years, with the certitude of democracy and fundamental rights (particularly, after the refutation of imposition of internal emergency and suspension of habeas corpus in mid-1970s) the Indian electorate has become confident. Mobility caused by rise in income and freedom to relocate has also loosened the casteist and feudal constraints and fears.

So, the Indian electorate with rising hopes and confidence have been changing the ruling political grouping on every occasion that they go to the polls since 1984 i.e. for the last 25 years.

In 1984, the Indian electorate gave an overwhelming to the Congress party led by Rajiv Gandhi (this came at the heels of sad assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi). Then in 1989, it was a political grouping (led by V.P. Singh) opposed to Congress party. Subsequently, it was Congress party and its allies in 1991; non-Congress party, non-Bharatiya Janata Party political grouping in 1996; Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies in 1998 and 1999 (those elections came too close to be considered different mandates); and then Congress party and its allies in 2004.

So the empirical generalization suggests that a non-Congress political grouping will secure a mandate. This political grouping may or may not be lead by Bharatiya Janata Party, and it is likely to be as short-lived as the political groupings of 1989 and 1996 (both of which lasted only for about two years).

The role of framing in assessments in public policy

As learned from extensive research in social sciences and experimental economics (such as Tverskey and Kahneman), we make assessments/evaluations from a reference point or an anchor point. Put it differently, our frame of reference matters and forms the basis for our assessments.

Look at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's assessment by the public. The reference frame/anchor is the party affiliation of the President. Optics is important --

Percent Expressing Great Deal/Fair Amount of Confidence in Ben Bernanke:

      Democrats Independents  Republicans
2008     40          43            61
2009     64          44            36

Has Barack Obama's support slipped in the month of July?

There has been speculation -- reasonable and based on some empirics -- that Barack Obama may have slipped some in the match-up against John McCain in the presidential preference measurement. This slippage appears to have occurred since about July 4th weekend. For example, the fivethirtyeight.com model shows some downturn, and Michael Barone also appears to think so. The tracking polls by Rasmussen and Gall Up show the race to be with in 1-2 points.

However, I am not certain that the preference measurement data are clear on this matter. I think that we need to get some new preference data from Ohio and Indiana, and that will present a more clear pictures, The last preference measures from Ohio and Indiana showed Obama to be in slight lead (2-4 points) in Ohio, and essentially tied in Indiana. Here is my thinking --

(1) It is true that Obama's lead has shrunk in Maine from 20 plus points to about 9 points, it is also true that McCain's lead has ballooned to 20 plus points from about 9 points in Kansas (Rasmussen reports.) But it is also true that Obama's lead in California has expanded to 20 plus points from single digits (Field poll) and to double-digits in most East-coast states and robust numbers in Michigan (Quinnipiac, Sienna, Strategic Vision polls and Survey USA polls.)

(2) Michael Barone argues (July 16th) that "...if one assumes McCain is running a little stronger now, in which states would he be overtaking Obama, assuming a uniform rise across the country? In the South, Virginia (13 electoral votes). In the West, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Oregon (24 electoral votes). In the Midwest, Indiana and Ohio (31 electoral votes). "

But recent preference measures (polls) taken after July 4th weekend show that Obama is leading by 4 points (about the same lead as in June) in Colorado, by about 9 points in Oregon (may be even a little bigger lead than in June), and he is tied with McCain in Virginia (about the same status as in June). There have not been preference measures in Montana, New Mexico and Indian and Ohio in the month of July. (Source, see RealClear Politics data). In any case, Barone's inference is inconsistent with data -- McCain is not leading in any of the states mentioned by him.

The state-by-state polls still appear to show the presidential race to be where it was in the month of June. Ohio will be a big one -- new polling data from Ohio will provide greater clarity.

Inertia, Discontinutiy and Voter Preferences

Social scientists talk about "persistence," "inertia," and "long run equilibrium" in their analyses and descriptions of individual, group social and market phenomena. For example, we find that brands generally revert to their mean i.e. average (sometimes, also called equilibrium) market share levels even after the firms inject some perturbations (such as aggressive advertising and promotion of the brand.) Surely, there are variations -- ups and downs -- created by the perturbations but eventually the level appears to revert to the average measure. Only a very discrete and definitive discontinuity changes this level.

Look at the current Democratic party presidential contest between Senators Clinton and Obama. In a national preference match-up, Senators Clinton and Obama were supported by about (average) 45 percent and 25 percent of the voters respectively in a national preference match-up. These numbers persisted in spite of many events including surprisingly strong fund raising reports by Obama and tentative debate performances by Clinton in October and November. None of those events provided enough discontinuity for voters to change their preference structure.

And then came Senator Obama's convincing victories in Iowa and South Carolina, and close placings in New Hampshire and Nevada in the month of January. Since these results were unexpected events (of course, not to the political class) to the Democratic party voters, the preference structure changed.

Since then Senators Clinton and Obama have both earning about 45 percent of support from the Democratic party supporters in the part contest for nomination, and both have been running about even with Senator John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) in the general elections match-up. Obama has been doing slightly better on average but not by much. None of the events -- Bosnia error by Clinton and Wright controversy for Obama -- has yet changed the preference structure.

Look at the perceptions of the three candidates - Clinton, McCain and Obama. As Gallup organization reports that over the course of the presidential campaign (when millions of dollars have been spent) basic perceptions have not changed much. Americans viewed McCain older and likable in January and the same perception dominates now in April. Clinton was perceived as experienced and not trustworthy then and that perception has not changed either. Obama is much better known today than before the campaign got underway, but the dominant perceptions of him (as being young and inexperienced and a fresh face with new ideas) have changed little.

It does not appear that there are likely to be any foreseen event that would shift the voter preferences substantially.

That's why this is such a dogged race in the Democratic party presidential nomination contest.