tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post1253762874603823442..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: How The Psephologists Missed The Wood For The TreesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-598225633842347242007-05-15T12:37:00.000+05:302007-05-15T12:37:00.000+05:30Dear Mr.Abi,Thanks for the response. But I think ...Dear Mr.Abi,<BR/>Thanks for the response. But I think we don't disagree at all. Where I thought I agree with Dipankar was on the question of how some poll pundits (His target was psephologists) assume that voters vote according to caste identity. I am not against caste identity as such. I do, like you, understand that it is the reality. I am only saying it is wrong to assume that voters belonging to a caste vote enbloc on the basis of their perceptions about their caste interests. Based on this flawed assumption, if the pundits make a forecast, it is likely to be a flawed forecast as well. I do not mean that caste identity is worse than religious or linguistic identities. I agree that caste is one of the significant means of political socialisation and even mobilisation. But it will be simplistic to assume that all members of a caste or community vote enbloc to a particular party or candidate, on the basis of narrow perceptions of who would better serve the interests of their caste or community. There is no data to suggest that it happens; still most pundits/analysts base their forecast or analysis on the basis of this flawed premise. Is it correct or desirable? Well, it is not real, so the question whether it is correct or desirable does not arise. The Election Law and the Model Code do say that it is not desirable to appeal to one's caste/religious/linguistic identity for electoral purposes - even though there is lack of clarity because of a lacuna which I pointed out in my earlier post.V.Venkatesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08138846925562952785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-56404634149210242432007-05-14T22:42:00.000+05:302007-05-14T22:42:00.000+05:30I find Dipankar Gupta unpersuasive. After castigat...I find Dipankar Gupta unpersuasive. After castigating the psephologists about their assumption about the primacy of caste, what does he have to offer? That this election's main message is that Brahmins and Dalits came together to vote against the OBCs!<BR/><BR/>The rest of his article is nothing but the now fashionable diatribe against the OBCs by painting them as the new oppressors in rural India. By overplaying the OBC ascendence, he seems to want to create the impression that the OBCs have well and truly 'arrived'. This line of thinking ignores evidence (which Satish Deshpande presents in his book 'Contemporary India') that shows clearly the huge lag between the upper castes and the OBCs. <BR/><BR/>I agree that caste is not everything. A smart psephologist like Yogendra Yadav would be the first one to admit it. And, in fact, he <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/asia/12india.html?ex=1336708800&en=f496c6f32a892140&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink" REL="nofollow">does</A>!<BR/><BR/>So, in effect, Dipankar Gupta picks a straw man psephologist and castigates him for being such a straw man!<BR/><BR/>But, coming back to your own misgivings about caste identities, my question to you would be: what is wrong with it? If someone thinks of his/her caste as an important part of his/her identity, why can't we just say, 'so be it', and move on? In what way is the caste identity 'badder' than, say, class identity? Or, one based on language? Or, religion? <BR/><BR/>If caste is going to play a role in our politics, I would much rather have a situation in which we discuss it openly and dispassionately and collect data on it objectively. It's far better than treating it as a big no-no, when we all realize that it is possibly one of the elephants in our political living room.Abihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06790560045313883673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-64016779421061990002007-05-14T17:12:00.000+05:302007-05-14T17:12:00.000+05:30Mr. Venkatesan,Since I know Rajeeva Karandikar (th...Mr. Venkatesan,<BR/><BR/>Since I know Rajeeva Karandikar (the statistician who works along with Yogendra Yadav) a little, I can assure you that neither he nor Yogendra Yadav himself subscribe to simple notions of voter behaviour like "a voter's voting decision is based on his/her caste and the caste of the candidate." They both are aware that voting decisions are more complex, though of course, jati plays a part in that decision.<BR/><BR/>From what I know, their work is solidly grounded in sampling theory. They basically sample the voting population taking due account of the diversity of that population. From the data that they collect, they analyse it to infer the way the population as a whole is going to vote. This part is relatively straightforward though not easy in practical terms: designing the sampling methodology and then carrying out the sampling involve a lot of hard work on the ground. But I know that YY and RL and their team do it fairly well.<BR/><BR/>The problem, as both YY and RL emphasize and continue to emphasize is one of translating the sample data into a prediction of the number of seats that will be won by each party. This is extremely difficult in our first-past-the-post election system with multiple parties. A small change in the voting percentage of one party can make a huge difference in the number of seats won by that party. If you analyse the past voting results, you will observe this phenomenon in a number of elections. Both YY and RL are therefore extremely careful in giving predictions about the number of seats and in the IBN program that I watched, both said that their prediction was just "an indicator." Indeed, RL said that he would not put any money on his own prediction!<BR/><BR/>I am not trying to defend RL, YY and their other counterparts. But I do wish you'd try to understand what they do before attributing harsh and simplistic views to them. Dipankar Gupta may be a sociologist, but I don't think he understands what was done by at least the more competent psephologists and the practical difficulties in giving a prediction of the number of seats.<BR/><BR/>As you are a journalist, I hope you won't mind my saying that you will get better insight of the psephology business by talking to people like YY and RL on their methodology. It is fashionable to criticise statisticians, but in the hands of a good practitioner, the data yields good and valuable insight.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>Suresh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com