2012
ST. NUNGHLUNG VICTOR
NPF · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY 41 / ST
Chandel.
Three Assembly elections, read through the candidate-level public record.
2017
Letpao Haokip
NPP · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Letpao Haokip | NPP | 14,216 |
| TS Warngam | IND | 12,091 |
| S. S. Olish | BJP | 9,842 |
| BD. Behring Anal | PDA | 3,044 |
| St. Victor Nunghlung | NPF | 1,574 |
| Chungjalen Haokip | INC | 1,185 |
| Thangkholun Haokip | AITC | 221 |
Margin: 2,125. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2017 report ↗, PDF p. 137
2022
SS. OLISH
BJP · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| SS. OLISH | BJP | 37,066 |
| Langhu Paulhring Anal | NPF | 9,725 |
Margin: 27,341. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2022 report ↗, PDF p. 102
CONSTITUENCY RESEARCH NOTE / AC 41
Chandel,
beneath the headline.
CALCULATED FINDING / COMPLETE WINNER COVERAGE
Chandel changed its election-day winning party in 2 of the two observed transitions between 2012, 2017 and 2022. Both observed transitions involved a different winning party. That pattern does not identify individual voter movement or explain why the changes occurred.
2012NPF
ST. NUNGHLUNG VICTOR
2017NPP
LETPAO HAOKIP
2022BJP
SS. Olish
↗ CEO Manipur · independent winner registers for all three elections. Election-day representation, not present Assembly membership.
COMPETITION
2022 · the latest reconciled contest
SS. OLISH received 37,066 of 46,791 candidate votes (79.22%). Langhu Paulhring Anal followed with 9,725 (20.78%). The margin was 27,341 votes, or 58.43 percentage points of candidate votes.
The winner exceeded half of candidate votes. This is a majority on this denominator, not a majority of registered electors. The top two candidates together accounted for 100.00%, leaving 0.00% for the remaining candidates.
The contest had 2 candidates and an effective-candidate count of 1.49. The latter weights candidates by vote share: it distinguishes a field with many very small candidacies from one with several substantial competitors.
↗ Official Form 20 · PDF p.102 ↗. Descriptive metrics, not a forecast.
COMPARISON
Read comparable denominators.
2 of three elections have a full published candidate contest for Chandel. Missing years interrupt the numerical series. A blank cell is a research gap, not zero support.
Margin percentage divides the winner–runner-up gap by all candidate votes in that election. It is not turnout, not a percentage of electors, and not a uniform swing required at the next election. Changes can reflect candidates, alliances, entry, participation and other conditions.
The party-share table compares 2017 with 2022 because both contests reconcile. A party absent from a complete candidate list has zero recorded candidate votes in that contest. Alliance support and voters' second preferences are not observed.
Interpreting the result as incumbent retention requires dated officeholding, by-election and party-switch records. Similar candidate names across years are not sufficient to establish personal continuity.
| Year | Candidate votes | Winning share | Margin | Margin / votes | Top two share | Effective candidates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Not available | Unavailable | Not available | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| 2017 | 42,173 | 33.71% | 2,125 | 5.04 pp | 62.38% | 3.88 |
| 2022 | 46,791 | 79.22% | 27,341 | 58.43 pp | 100.00% | 1.49 |
| Party | 2017 | 2022 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| BJP | 23.34% | 79.22% | 55.88 pp |
| NPP | 33.71% | 0.00% | -33.71 pp |
| IND | 28.67% | 0.00% | -28.67 pp |
| NPF | 3.73% | 20.78% | 17.05 pp |
| PDA | 7.22% | 0.00% | -7.22 pp |
| INC | 2.81% | 0.00% | -2.81 pp |
| AITC | 0.52% | 0.00% | -0.52 pp |
↗ Calculated from complete candidate lists. A party-share change is not evidence that the same individuals changed parties.
What needs a separate local evidence base
Current service access, displacement, livelihoods, road reliability, public works and rehabilitation outcomes need dated local records. State averages and historical map district labels cannot establish these conditions for Chandel. Community composition and individual political preferences are not inferred from a candidate's name, reservation category or constituency geography.
Read the statewide transition and competition study ↗Continuity
and change.
Compare election-day candidates and parties. A change in winning party does not establish why voters changed their choices. Defections, by-elections and boundary changes require separate records.
District and hill/valley classification are withheld until a versioned administrative crosswalk is reviewed. Historical map district labels are not presented as current districts.
Return to the electoral atlas ↗