Talk:1952 Madras State Legislative Assembly election

parties?

CP = Common Weal Party, MSML = Madras State Muslim League Party, FBL = Forward Bloc (Marxist Group), JP= Justice Party. Could someone pls verify this? --L I C 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. If you look at the commission report, in the second reference at the bottom, link: http://eci.nic.in/StatisticalReports/SE_1951/STATISTICALREPORTS_51_MADRAS.pdf, they have the full name, for party abbreviations on page 1. I have liked what you have done with the page so far! Good job!--Harish89 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --L I C 14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Legality of non-elected Chief Minister!

if someone could add information about constitutional legality of a Chief Minister being non-elected, it will be greatly useful. --L I C 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no direct issue with it, AFAIK. A Chief Minister needs to be a member of the state legislature. Madras had a bicameral legislature in those days, and Rajaji was appointed to the upper house - the Legislative Council - by the Governor. If I remember right - and this is entirely from memory, I don't have the time at present to research the issue properly - the reason it was controversial was that the governor appointed him to the Legislative Council - without the advice of the Council of Ministers. And the whole thing basically stank, because it came across as a desperate measure to cling on to power and keep the Left out - it broke a number of principles that people had hoped would evolve into unwritten conventions. Still, I suppose it is best characterised as a case of impropriety rather than illegality. I should add that I'm not neutral on this topic - my mother's uncle was active in the CPI in South India in those days and played a not insignificant role in the campaign, so this election is a subject on which we have somewhat strong views. It is strong enough to amount to a conflict of interest, in my view, so I would rather not edit the article directly. -- Arvind (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

interesting perspective. looks like we have to have an expanded section on this topic. I will see what I can do. thanks. --L I C 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A perfunctory search on JSTOR suggests that there should be a number of academic sources available. I'm happy to help, but really, I'll have too much of a pro-Left bias to really be objective in any analysis. --Arvind (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ur help will be much appreciated. everyone comes in here with a bias. is probably easier to deal with an openly-declared bias. i am sure, we will wade through your, mine and others' bias to come up with something neutral. --L I C 23:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of "unknowns". the exact circumstances. I understand that Rajaji was called in from retirement. What is not clear is the "numbers game". Why CPI could not form Government if Congress had trouble. Apparently, they couldnt get all the support of all the opposition. Why Congress party couldnt simply choose some other elected Congress leader as opposed to Rajaji. It would be also helpful to explain about the Legislative Council and how the members here can also be elected Chief Ministers. It should also be explained how Cabinet approval can be expected for Rajaji's MLC appointment when there is no cabinet in place without the Chief Minister. --L I C 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

why two winners?

still cant figure out why there are two winners in some constituencies... --L I C 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

At that point in time, there were some constituencies which were classified as "two member" constituencies. I think in '57, the constituencies were split to be like Chidambaram North and Chidambaram South etc, but until then, except the major cities, other places were bulked up as "at-large" constituencies. Hope this helps. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

wonder why they did that. I was noticing one of the winners in all these two winner constituencies were Scheduled Caste candidates. Is my observation correct? If you scroll down to the detailed info of each constituency in this 1957 election report, for example, page 147... --L I C 01:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your observation appears correct, but I don't know what to make of it. I was always under the impression that both seats were "at large", perhaps I was wrong, I just don't know the detail behind the logic for the two seat system. I think the electoral system was revamped with the reconstitution of states - not necessarily connected, but around the same time. I'll see if I can dig up a source sometime. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are dual member constituencies. A reserved constituency had two members - one general and one SC/ST. The system stayed for 1952 and 1957. Got abolished in 1961 with the Two-Member Constituencies(Abolition) Act, 1961. Mostly because in many cases both reserved and general categories were won by SC/ST members leaving two reserved representatives. The bill replaced dual representation with the reserved constituency system we have now. (http://books.google.com/books?id=Zgt2JdUrsHUC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362)Sodabottle (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

thx for clearing it up. guess it should be included in the article. --CarTick 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

does it mean there were two runner-ups?? Did people in those constituencies have to vote for two people or just the first and second "vote-getters" were announced winners?? --CarTick 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Two lists were put up for each constituency- one general list and one SC/ST list. Voters can cast two votes. Parties had to put up a two candidate ticket. The winners were the first two vote getters amongst all candidates. The framers of the system didnt anticipate block voting. But what happened was, strategic voting by SC/ST voters - they would vote only in the SC/ST ballot paper and ignore the general ballot/or cast their votes for non-serious/no hope candidates. As a result, the top two SC/ST candidates would get more votes than even the no 1 candidate in the general list. As per the rules, they would be the members (a hole in the system ;-) ). VV Giri once got tossed out in such a way and they ended the system. (http://www.thehindu.com/2009/03/18/stories/2009031854540400.htm)Sodabottle (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That is as big a hole as Grand Canyon. I am not surprised Indian framers didnt notice that. --CarTick 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That is because of the congress monopoly they were accustomed to. They never thought about voters doing cross ballot ignoring party tickets. This occurs because of the "sinnathai pathu vote kuthunga" electoral politics in India - they didnt expect voters to have a higher loyalty than the party.Sodabottle (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

makes sense. --CarTick 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong on the one voter two votes concept. There was only single vote per person. oops was right the first time(there were two votes and sometime 3 votes in some constituencies..) The selection of the two winning candidates was : 1) first among SC/ST candidates and 2)Highest vote gatherer amongst all other candidates minus no 1 SC/ST candidate. only now tallied up the vote percentages for all candidates and saw the error. (wrongly tallied up percentages of votes cast and didnt see the votes percentage polled in reserved constituencies is normally double the general ones)Sodabottle (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Parvathipuram 1957

This is what happened to VV Giri in parvathipuram in 1957 (http://ibnlive.in.com/politics/electionstats/constituency/1957/S01/2.html)

sition Candidate Sex Party Total Votes Votes percentage
1 B. Satyanarayana INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (INC) 126792 25.65%
2 Dippala Suri Dora INDEPENDENT (IND) 124604 25.20%
3 V.v. Giri INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (INC) 124039 25.09%
4 Vasireddy Krishnamurthy Naidu INDEPENDENT (IND) 118968 24.06%

He got more votes than no 2 guy in general category but less votes than no 2 guy in reserved category. So no1 and no2 from reserved categories were declared elected :-)) Sodabottle (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

good job. thanx for clarifying it. I believe we can even start a new article on this dual constituency controversy. If you are not starting, I will start later today. --CarTick 18:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and start the new article. i am currently refraining from creating new articles on politics. because if i get into this i will neglect my current new article creation targets in cinema and history :-))). I have quite a few pending things to do in those areas :-) Sodabottle (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

number of dual member constituencies

it is more than 8.... --CarTick 13:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

corrected that number and added references for the number. 66 were reserved dual constituencies and apart from them 8 single member constituencies were also reserved.Sodabottle (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion proposals

• Background

1) 1942 Rajaji shuns quit india movement.[1] becomes alienated in TN congress[2]. TNCC under kamaraj's control
2)1946 Elections - 3 CMs in five years prakasam, omandur ramasamy, kumarasamy raja. rampant factionalism. [3]. other factions - subbarayan and rajaji (limited influence). factions - Andra telugus (Prakasam), Tamil telugus (kumarasamy raja, omandur), non kamaraj tamils (subbarayan), kamaraj, rajaji (exiled to delhi for his quit india movement stance)

• Election and no majority

1) 1947-51 - Commies try armed struggle. patel and nehru crush commies. 1951 - commies drop "people's democracy" jump to "national democracy". join electoral politics. contest 52 elections
2) No clear majority for anyone in Madras. kumarasamy raja defeated; subbarayan not acceptable to kamaraj; tss rajan sick; kamaraj is in lok sabha; prakasam left to form [Hyderabad State Praja Party] and split votes in Andra to defeat congress candidates. OPR retired. no consensus candidates emerge
3) commies form united front CPI(61), kmpp (35), commonweal (6), toilers (19) krishikar (breakaway from prakasam's group), socialists etc form a "united front". stake claim for government 4)Congress doesnt want commies in power. they bring rajaji as compromise candidate. Sri Prakasa setting a bad precedent invites rajaji [4][5]. no one is sure about constitutional propriety. PIL is filed. but rajaji sits tight. Lures manickavelu naicker (common weal) and neeladri reddy and thimma reddy(klp) with enough mla s to get majority. he got 200 MLAs in july 1952 to support him [6][7][8][9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to get this included as a background section like you suggested, pls feel free to correct me. --CarTick 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

could u pls add the information about how the communists could get some level of upper hand in Andhra region in the background section. --CarTick

I am expanding the background section slowly. There is more background material for me to read. Basically it is this - There were peasant revolts going on in Telengana/Andhra/Tanjavur from 1944 onwards . Commies were brutally crushed by the prakasam govt.And the kumarasamy govt continued the same policies (i believe opr was more sympathetic). CPI and other communist parties did well in all those areas [10][11][12][Telangana Rebellion]. Will expand the background section tomorrow with this --Sodabottle (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Defectors

Congress's strength was 152 in March 52. But by July Rajaji obtained the support of 200 members. 48 defectors were there.

1) Manickavelu naickar (commonweal) - 6
2) Ramasamy padayachi (tamil nadu toilers) - 19 (they offered support but didn't join the ministry?) [13]
3) splitting KLP - 15 [14]

that makes about 40. i am missing some --Sodabottle (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

great job. pls continue, i will be able to look at them only later today. --CarTick 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

constituencies

dont add up. i could identify only 27 Malabar and 8 kannada constituencies. I guess i got it all mixed between Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra. Rediff article by T. V. R. Shenoy says there are 29 in Malabar, 143 in the Andhra , 190 Tamil and 11 kannada constituencies. --CarTick 05:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are members right? 375 members and 309 constituences. (66 two members). That there were 190 members in TN after linguistic reorganisation we have other references to back up. From the list we have ( i updated a few constituencies)

309 constituencies and elections held for 372 seats (it should be 373)

*TN - 151 constituencies and 190 members ( 39 two members)
*AP - 123 constituencies and 143 members (20 two members)
*Malabar - 27 constituencies and 31 members (4 two member)
*Karnataka - 8 constituencies and 9 members (1 two member)
* Uncontested??  -                3 members (this is where discrepancy is coming.. i think it was only 2 members uncontested 1 anglo indian nominated and the other unknown)

Total 309 constituencies and 375 members —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

According to shenoy malabar + karnataka =40. according to us also malabar + karnataka =40. I think two of the north kerala ones went to karanataka (kasargod and hosdrug) they are right on the border with karnataka. If so, almost everything tallies now.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

that is right. it is members. seems to add up. I need to count them just to be sure. --CarTick 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

number of Karnataka constituencies

responding to this discussion:

well, Indian election commission article does not distinguish between different modern states. it could be that i made a mistake while listing them. could we identify and rectify the mistake by simply reading through. Puttur sounds like an AP constituency for example. --CarTick 18:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i read our old discussions again and saw the 11 count was for 372 const for which polling took place. so you are right, we need to find correct geographic locations.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

that is funny i didnt remember what we have discussded before. i have such a horrible memory. should be careful, I am bound to make contradictory statements becuase i forget and change my opinion with time. thanks for reminding. --CarTick 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Madras Legislative Assembly election, 1952. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413233934/http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/history/history.htm to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/history/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303204611/http://assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/list/assemblies-overview.htm to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/list/assemblies-overview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721181440/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/4880/5/MAU-1992-055-4.pdf to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/4880/5/MAU-1992-055-4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017181036/http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/review_01assly/table04.pdf to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/review_01assly/table04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Meenakshisundaram Kalyanasundaram.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)