2012
OKRAM IBOBI SINGH
INC · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY 31 / GEN
Thoubal.
Three Assembly elections, read through the candidate-level public record.
2017
Okram Ibobi Singh
INC · elected
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Okram Ibobi Singh | INC | 18,649 |
| Leitanthem Basanta Singh | BJP | 8,179 |
| Leishangthem Suresh Singh | AITC | 144 |
| Irom Sharmila Chanu | PRJA | 90 |
| Dr. Akoijam Manglemjao Singh | IND | 66 |
Margin: 10,470. Electors, turnout and NOTA appear only when reconciled.
↗ CEO Manipur · 2017 report ↗, PDF p. 116
2022
Okram Ibobi Singh
INC · official election-day winner
Full candidate totals not reconciledCandidate results have not passed transcription and reconciliation for this election.
CONSTITUENCY RESEARCH NOTE / AC 31
Thoubal,
beneath the headline.
CALCULATED FINDING / COMPLETE WINNER COVERAGE
Thoubal changed its election-day winning party in 0 of the two observed transitions between 2012, 2017 and 2022. The same party won all three elections. This establishes party-level continuity, not necessarily continuity of candidate or voter support.
2012INC
OKRAM IBOBI SINGH
2017INC
OKRAM IBOBI SINGH
2022INC
Okram Ibobi Singh
↗ CEO Manipur · independent winner registers for all three elections. Election-day representation, not present Assembly membership.
COMPETITION
2017 · the latest reconciled contest
Okram Ibobi Singh received 18,649 of 27,128 candidate votes (68.74%). Leitanthem Basanta Singh followed with 8,179 (30.15%). The margin was 10,470 votes, or 38.59 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 98.89%, leaving 1.11% for the remaining candidates.
The contest had 5 candidates and an effective-candidate count of 1.77. 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.116 ↗. Descriptive metrics, not a forecast.
COMPARISON
Read comparable denominators.
1 of three elections have a full published candidate contest for Thoubal. 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 | 27,128 | 68.74% | 10,470 | 38.59 pp | 98.89% | 1.77 |
| 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 Thoubal. 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 ↗