2012
M.K. PRESHOW
INC · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY 45 / ST
Chingai.
Three Assembly elections, read through the candidate-level public record.
2017
Khashim Vashum
NPF · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Khashim Vashum | NPF | 16,582 |
| Sword Vashum | BJP | 8,932 |
| Preshow M. K. Shimray | INC | 6,370 |
| N. K. Shimray | NEIDP | 157 |
Margin: 7,650. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2017 report ↗, PDF p. 149
2022
KHASHIM VASHUM
NPF · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| KHASHIM VASHUM | NPF | 12,837 |
| NINGAM CHAMROY | NPP | 10,501 |
| PRESHOW MK SHIMRAY | BJP | 9,349 |
| SWORD VASHUM | INC | 8,150 |
Margin: 2,336. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2022 report ↗, PDF p. 106
CONSTITUENCY RESEARCH NOTE / AC 45
Chingai,
beneath the headline.
CALCULATED FINDING / COMPLETE WINNER COVERAGE
Chingai changed its election-day winning party in 1 of the two observed transitions between 2012, 2017 and 2022. One transition retained the previous winning party and one changed it. The sequence matters more than a single endpoint comparison.
2012INC
M.K. PRESHOW
2017NPF
KHASHIM VASHUM
2022NPF
Khashim Vashum
↗ CEO Manipur · independent winner registers for all three elections. Election-day representation, not present Assembly membership.
COMPETITION
2022 · the latest reconciled contest
KHASHIM VASHUM received 12,837 of 40,837 candidate votes (31.43%). NINGAM CHAMROY followed with 10,501 (25.71%). The margin was 2,336 votes, or 5.72 percentage points of candidate votes.
The winner did not exceed half of candidate votes. Winning under plurality rules does not require support from a majority on this denominator. The top two candidates together accounted for 57.15%, leaving 42.85% for the remaining candidates.
The contest had 4 candidates and an effective-candidate count of 3.89. 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.106 ↗. Descriptive metrics, not a forecast.
COMPARISON
Read comparable denominators.
2 of three elections have a full published candidate contest for Chingai. 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 | 32,041 | 51.75% | 7,650 | 23.88 pp | 79.63% | 2.60 |
| 2022 | 40,837 | 31.43% | 2,336 | 5.72 pp | 57.15% | 3.89 |
| Party | 2017 | 2022 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| NPP | 0.00% | 25.71% | 25.71 pp |
| NPF | 51.75% | 31.43% | -20.32 pp |
| BJP | 27.88% | 22.89% | -4.98 pp |
| NEIDP | 0.49% | 0.00% | -0.49 pp |
| INC | 19.88% | 19.96% | 0.08 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 Chingai. 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 ↗