2012
THOUDAM DEBENDRA SINGH
INC · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY 40 / GEN
Jiribam.
Three Assembly elections, read through the candidate-level public record.
2017
Ashab Uddin
IND · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Ashab Uddin | IND | 8,189 |
| Thoudam Debendra Singh | INC | 6,539 |
| Thounaojam Ranabir Singh | BJP | 3,199 |
| A. Biren Singh | NEIDP | 2,812 |
| Mathiudin Kamei | NPF | 1,163 |
| Habib Ali | NPP | 649 |
Margin: 1,650. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2017 report ↗, PDF p. 134
2022
MD. ACHAB UDDIN
JD(U) · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| MD. ACHAB UDDIN | JD(U) | 12,313 |
| NAMEIRAKPAM BUDHACHANDRA SINGH | BJP | 11,897 |
| MAKAKMAYUM ABBAS KHAN | NPP | 1,113 |
| BADRUR RAHMAN | INC | 746 |
Margin: 416. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2022 report ↗, PDF p. 101
CONSTITUENCY RESEARCH NOTE / AC 40
Jiribam,
beneath the headline.
CALCULATED FINDING / COMPLETE WINNER COVERAGE
Jiribam 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.
2012INC
THOUDAM DEBENDRA SINGH
2017IND
ASHAB UDDIN
2022JD(U)
Md. Achab Uddin
↗ CEO Manipur · independent winner registers for all three elections. Election-day representation, not present Assembly membership.
COMPETITION
2022 · the latest reconciled contest
MD. ACHAB UDDIN received 12,313 of 26,069 candidate votes (47.23%). NAMEIRAKPAM BUDHACHANDRA SINGH followed with 11,897 (45.64%). The margin was 416 votes, or 1.60 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 92.87%, leaving 7.13% for the remaining candidates.
The contest had 4 candidates and an effective-candidate count of 2.30. 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.101 ↗. Descriptive metrics, not a forecast.
COMPARISON
Read comparable denominators.
2 of three elections have a full published candidate contest for Jiribam. 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 | 22,551 | 36.31% | 1,650 | 7.32 pp | 65.31% | 3.92 |
| 2022 | 26,069 | 47.23% | 416 | 1.60 pp | 92.87% | 2.30 |
| Party | 2017 | 2022 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| JD(U) | 0.00% | 47.23% | 47.23 pp |
| IND | 36.31% | 0.00% | -36.31 pp |
| BJP | 14.19% | 45.64% | 31.45 pp |
| INC | 29.00% | 2.86% | -26.13 pp |
| NEIDP | 12.47% | 0.00% | -12.47 pp |
| NPF | 5.16% | 0.00% | -5.16 pp |
| NPP | 2.88% | 4.27% | 1.39 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 Jiribam. 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 ↗