Money can’t always buy votes

Money can’t always buy votes

Context:

• There is a widely held belief that voters in India, especially the poor, sell their votes in exchange for cash or other briberies.
• Thus, the supply of cash and consumption of liquor increases during elections remains unexplained.

What does recent research says about briberies during election?

• Recent research says that spending of money was not reflected in the vote count.
• The candidate who spent the most came nowhere near winning the seat, while the candidate who won a landslide victory did so with limited spending.
• Thus, distribution of money is seen as an uncertain investment and a leap of faith on the part of the candidate.

What is the reason behind such briberies in India?

Cash to support a campaign:

• Parties have weak organisations at the local level and face heavy institutional constraints.
• Thus, money acts as a substitute for the organisation as cash is used to engage vote mobilisers or local individuals who will seek votes for a party and/or candidate.

A cheaper move:

• Given the size of constituencies, a candidate requires an army of workers during the campaign period which ends up being quite expensive.
• To avoid this, candidates spend huge sums of money on cash, liquor and gifts that they hand out to their middlemen.

Money signals access to powerful networks:

• Money allows candidates to mobilize supporters who in turn can pull a crowd together.
• The display of money during elections is socially approved in certain ways, is a political necessity, and is born of cultural expectations.