Skip to content


A link posted on Twitter led me to investigate this. This is the link. I don't think the maths is accurate, or that Wikipedia is a good source for this kind of thing, but luckily, I was able to locate good sources.

Warning: I am no election expert, nor am I all that great at maths. Verify rebut or endorse at your own risk.

The vote share in Uttar Pradesh as per

Scroll right down to the bottom for total votes cast. I read the number 80926378 .

Now head over to the election commission website for the UP page and scroll down to the piechart for vote share with list on left, with number of votes cast. The numbers with dots in front of them expand to show full number when you hover your mouse over them, and you get the following results:


Uttar Pradesh vote share
Uttar Pradesh vote share


PartyVotes%Vote Count


That is looking like 1175099 LESS votes recorded.

Considering that several crucial victory margins can be explained by such numbers, if my maths is right, it looks like a re-poll, right?

Erm yes. EVM fraud is easily possible if you know how to hack it. Apparently EVM fraud likely happened in 2009 as well.

There are some explanations coming up, like the EC not providing vote share of "others" - probably independents, which could explain the difference. Others are saying that the difference could be the postal ballot. But going through the data per constituency disproves both.

The "others" being the difference gets disproved when you tally votes per constituency, where the number of votes each candidates gets is explicit and without room for omissions. We find that every constituency has a difference in number of votes cast and counted.

The postal ballot theory gets disproved because the votes counted don't always exceed votes cast. A person voting by ballot can be understood. There is no explanation for votes already cast going missing - which is the difference in numbers on a state level, which goes above 11 lakh.

I will update data or all constituencies, but this initial sample is good enough to see what I mean.


ConstituencyVotes castVotes recordedDifference


Medha Patkar has filed a complaint with the Election Commission. The address tag used to identify EVM machines for one of the machines in her constituency was found on the road last evening.

EVM address tag found on street in North East Mumbai constituency
EVM address tag found on street in North East Mumbai constituency

This raises the possibility of EVM tampering.

After all, Subramanian Swamy, BJP's resident expert on EVM tampering has declared that EVM fraud has happened in these elections:


In the year 2000, Swamy had alleged that the widespread use of EVMs was a part of the RSS plan and provided some numbers to prove his allegation:

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) will be used in all the constituencies. Perhaps it is then easier to rig the outcome. After all, in the 1999 general elections, the BJP and its allies won 34 out of the 45 Lok Sabha constituencies which had EVMs. On that ratio, the NDA should have won 405 se ats of the 544 Lok Sabha constituencies and not 292. EVMs have to be programmed by an engineer to tabulate the votes in its memory. It can easily be programmed to transfer votes of one candidate to another, or one party to another. The EVMs are entirely unsafeguarded today. I suspect it was rigged in the 1999 general elections.

Considering that he has joined the BJP now, I assume he isn't accusing the BJP this time around. Nor do we have any control group not using EVMs. However, considering the blatant manipulation of every aspect of the election so far, Medha Patkar's complaint does not seem to be unfounded.

A day after P. Sainath said rather bluntly that media has participated in this election as a comment on reporting bias, Rajdeep Sardesai asked the AAP spokes person if this was AAP being a "sore loser". So one wonders if there is actually any concern about free and fair elections among the media or must this election be considered one without scrutiny for some aspects, or rather, a side.

Note: The Subramanian Swamy example is used mostly to shut up BJP trolls, who are rather keen on claiming victim roles, even when all indications show them sabotaging the process most often.