2012
GAIKHANGAM
INC · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY 54 / ST
Nungba.
Three Assembly elections, read through the candidate-level public record.
2017
Gaikhangam
INC · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Gaikhangam | INC | 10,255 |
| Adim Pamei | BJP | 5,108 |
| Pou Mathiupuang Gonmei | LJP | 4,111 |
| Kamei William Kabui | AITC | 110 |
Margin: 5,147. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2017 report ↗, PDF p. 176
2022
Dinganglung Gangmei
BJP · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
CONSTITUENCY RESEARCH NOTE / AC 54
Nungba,
beneath the headline.
CALCULATED FINDING / COMPLETE WINNER COVERAGE
Nungba 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
GAIKHANGAM
2017INC
GAIKHANGAM
2022BJP
Dinganglung Gangmei
↗ CEO Manipur · independent winner registers for all three elections. Election-day representation, not present Assembly membership.
COMPETITION
2017 · the latest reconciled contest
Gaikhangam received 10,255 of 19,584 candidate votes (52.36%). Adim Pamei followed with 5,108 (26.08%). The margin was 5,147 votes, or 26.28 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 78.45%, leaving 21.55% for the remaining candidates.
The contest had 4 candidates and an effective-candidate count of 2.59. 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.176 ↗. Descriptive metrics, not a forecast.
COMPARISON
Read comparable denominators.
1 of three elections have a full published candidate contest for Nungba. 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.
A cross-election party-share comparison is withheld until at least two complete contests are available. The party sequence above remains valid independently of those missing vote totals.
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 | 19,584 | 52.36% | 5,147 | 26.28 pp | 78.45% | 2.59 |
| 2022 | Not available | Unavailable | Not available | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable |
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 Nungba. 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 ↗