Historical Analysis of Electoral Trends and Political Parties in Assembly and General Elections in Andhra Pradesh (1956–2019)
The state of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956. At the time of Independence, the Telugu- speaking people were concentrated in the old multilingual Madras State and the princely State of Hyderabad. The Telugu-speaking areas (Costal Andhra and Rayalaseema) of the Madras State were separated on 1 October 1953 tocreate the ‘Andhra State’, with Kurnool as capital. Later, the Telugu-speaking districts (referred to as Telangana region) of the old Hyderabad State were merged with the Andhra State on 1 November 1956 under the State Reorganisation Act, to form the greater Andhra (Visalandhra), called Andhra Pradesh. It was the first State in Independent India to be formed on linguistic principle, creating one unified State for people speaking one language.
Era of Congress Dominance (1953–1983) — Professor Kochanek in his book “India: Government and Politicsin a Developing Nation” called Indian party system as “One-Party Democracy” and the political scene in state of Andhra Pradesh (AP) was similar to his opinion where politics are dominated by Indian National Congress (INC) and AP state was often regarded as political bastion of congress in the first half as the state has witnessed a major Congress era right from its formation in 1953 to 1983.
Emergence of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) — Increased dissatisfaction among the people towards the Congress style of politics, its all-round decay and the inability of the other political parties in the state to consolidate anti-congress/non-congress vote bank and their failure to present a viable political and electoral alternative to the Congress provided a fertile ground for the birth and growth of a regional party in the State. In 1982, N. T. RamaRao (NTR), one of the legends of Telegu cinema, established Telugu Desam Party. NTR’s cine popularity became catalyst for TDP and he was highly successful in generating a euphoria over the slogans of ‘restorationof self-respect of the Telugus’, ‘humiliation of the Telugus by a system of imposing the Chief Ministers from Delhi’, and ‘fight against the inefficient and corrupt administration of the Congress’. NTR was successful in grass-root level penetration, TDP recorded a landslide victory ending the one-party dominance of the Congress Party in Andhra Pradesh of nearly three decades and also holds a record in Indian political history for coming to power ina state within 9 months of establishment of the party.
Emergence of YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) — Since 1983, Andhra Pradesh politics has majorly been a two-party political game between TDP and INC. 2009–2011 was a turbulent period in AP Politics where political turmoil was prevailing in both the regions of Seemandhra and Telangana due to the tragic death of strongest leader / chief minister of congress Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy (YSR) and the consequent rise of separate Telangana movement led to complete transformation of electoral politics in both the regions which led to consolidation of vote bank on separatist sentiment in the Telangana region and formation of Y.S.R Congress Party (YSRCP) by Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy son of former CM YSR. YSRCP emerged as a new player in AP politics and Jagan was successful in absorption of INC vote bank and occupied position of political rival with TDP. 2014 and 2019 elections even though majorly a two-party political fight but a new player came into picture to fight with TDP. The politics of Andhra Pradesh takes place in the context of bicameral legislature. In AP state, the Vidhan Sabha, or Legislative Assembly, had 294 constituencies before its bifurcation in 2014, 42 Lok Sabha and 18 Rajya Sabha seats. After bifurcation in 2014, Andhra Pradesh currently has 175 assembly constituencies, 25 Lok Sabha and 11 Rajya Sabha seats.
Party Performance Indicators
- TURNOUT
a) The voter turnout has seen a constant increase starting 1999. This historical increase of 10% in the lasttwo decades from 69% to 79% can be attributed to the awareness drives and forums created by Election Commission of India which resulted in subsequent sensitisation of voters.
b) Comparison between 2014 and 2019 elections shows constant increase of voter turnout (5%) across all segments (men/women/total) which can be attributed to multitude of factors like overambitious, centralised capital and concentrated model of development initiated by the TDP (E Venkatesu 2019), failure to deliver promised assurances to different sections of people ( farm loan wavier, loan wavier to self-help groups (SHG), fee reimbursement, Corruption Scams in irrigation projects (Polavaram), Sandmafia etc played against TDP.
c) People’s dissatisfaction on the TDP government was rightly encashed by YSRCP chief Jagan. His Padayatra (walkathon) covering 3,648 km across 13 districts of AP worked as a talisman for YSRCP as he carefully highlighted TDP government’s failures and presented assurance to people through his 9 Core schemes in manifesto called “Navaratnalu”. This holistic strategy of Jagan and his party made people to come out in huge numbers to vote, a historic 50% of people voted in favour of YSRCP and seat share of 86%.
d) Another trend worth noticing is the historical increase in female turnover rates over the years. There has been an increase from 66% to 79% in the last decade. Apart from institutional activities (ECI awareness drives and forums), Parties women focused manifestos and respective government schemes (women centricself-help groups, gender- budgeting, low-interest loans etc) have contributed to the historical increase. In 2019 elections also women voted more than men in 101 of the 175 assembly constituencies.
2. SEAT & VOTE SHARE
Table 1
Table 2
Figure 1
Table 3
Figure 2
Figure 3 — Vote Share in Assembly Elections across years
Figure 4
Table 5
Figure 5
Figure 6
The trend analysis for seat share, vote share all and vote share contested for both GE and AE is as follows:
In Andhra Pradesh, both the General and the Assembly Elections happen simultaneously and exhibit more or less similar trends.
Decade of INC vs TDP (1999–2009)-
In this decade, 3 Election cycles (1999,2004,2009) happened in Andhra Pradesh. Mostly all of the elections was a fight between two blocs headed by INC and TDP and notable feature among all of the elections is swift of political parties from one bloc to another when we compare one election cycle with another. For example, TRS was acoalition partner of INC in 2004 elections but the same party shifted to TDP bloc in 2009 elections.
The year wise trend of the listed parameters is as follows-
1. 1999
TDP-BJP alliance secured a massive victory in 1999. It won with a seat share of more than 60% and a vote share of 44% (Table 2, Table 3 and Figure 2). Despite the Congress making a serious effort to encash anti-incumbency and to continue their winning streak of 1998 Lok Sabha elections, the TDP retained power, even gaining many seats from the Congress. BJP emerged as a most important player in 1998 Lok Sabha elections. Apart from four seat seats it won, BJP has also secured close to 15% votes. One of the foremost reason for theTDP win in 1999 assembly elections was TDP-BJP alliance, TDP benefited from seat adjustments with theBhartiya Janata Party since without it, they might have eaten into each other’s votes. TDP- BJP alliance scored an impressive victory in Lok Sabha elections (36 out of 42 seats (49.8% Vote Share), TDP won 29 seats (out of 34 contested) and BJP won 7 seats ( out of 8 contested) and picture was similar in AE too, TDP won 179 seats (out of 269 contested) and BJP won 12 seats ( out of 24 contested) with the alliance securing 47.5% votes ( Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4).
Reasons for the TDP’s good performance- Chandrababu Naidu introduced a plethora of schemes purportedly forthe welfare and uplift of the Dalits, tribal people, artisans, poor, handicapped, minorities, old persons and every other conceivable section of society. He introduced the Janmabhoomi programme for community participation, launched schemes like the incentives to DWACRA (self-help) groups, Sukhibhava (blessing) to provide government support for post-natal women, Samrakshana (protection) for poor girls, Mahila banks (women’s banks), Adarana (for backward class artisans), Chaitanyam (for Tribals), the Mundadugu (for Dalits), the Cheyutha (for the Physically Handicapped), Roshni (for the Minorities).
TDP also strengthened its party structure, right down to the polling booth level, supplementing it with theparty’s elected functionaries in local bodies like the panchayat and municipalities, and self-help groups that have been formed by the thousands in Andhra Pradesh in the last few years.
2. 2004
2004 elections was a battle fought between 2 pre-poll alliance blocs i.e. UPA (INC + Left font + TRS) and NDA (TDP + BJP). This elections assumed plebiscitary character as they primarily fought between persona ofChandra Babu Naidu (CBN), his policies (Liberalisation of Economy, Image of Hi-tech CM and CEO governance) and grass-root level issues like Agrarian distress, Farmer suicides, Security Challenges (Naxalism), Power tariff hike issue etc. YS Rajasekhar Reddy (YSR) became the face of INC bloc, his historic padayatra (walkathon) helped him immensely not only in highlighting loopholes in CBN’s alternative governance and his anti-people policies which are excessively lenient towards liberalisation of economy but also made him messiah of masses as he covered 1500 kms across the state covering many villages and also touched every social fabric of the society.
INC bloc registered landslide victory in the 2004 legislative elections by bagging 76.8% seats ( INC alone bagged 63% of seats — 185) (Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1) with a vote share of 48.61 ( INC vote share — 39%) ( Figure 3, Table 4) and INC’s electoral performance was much better if we seevote share in contested seats (Figure 5). TDP bloc on other side reduced to 16.66 seats (TDP — 47 seats, BJP — 2 seats) with a vote share of 40.22 %.
In Lok Sabha elections UPA and NDA’s performance more or less similar with vote share of 48.4 and 41.5 respectively (Figure 6)
3. 2009
INC’s second consecutive victory in 2009 Vidhan Sabha and Lok Sabha elections gave a mixed message topolitical parties in AP. YSR government’s win bypassing anti-incumbency was a remarkable feat considering electoral notion of voting out incumbent parties in India but at the same time victory of INC depicts another picture where it came to power with reduced number of seats (156 — loss of 29 seats) and with the lowest percentage of votes (36.5 % — loss of 2% vote share ) in any assembly election it won since 1956. 2009 election was unique as this the first time in electoral history of AP elections were fought on true multi-party font. New political players like Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) and Loksatta Party (LSP) entered electoral landscape (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4).
2009 elections were fought between INC, YSR being the face of the party, the Mahakutami (Grand Alliance) comprising of TDP, Left front, TRS and the first-time contenders (PRP and LSP). The Victory of INC is neither a pro-incumbency nor anti-incumbency, but it presents a status-quo picture. The major reason that can be attributed for INC’s win and TDP’s loss is division of votes between Mahakutami and new entrants (PRP and LSP). INC’s vote share in Vidhan Sabha elections 36.5%, Grand Alliance vote share is 34.54 % and the new entrants vote share is 18% which clearly shows division of vote (Figure 3, Table 4). Deep analysis of division of vote presents a new picture, Kapus for the first time fought electoral battle on frontline by consolidating their support to PRP. According to KC Suri’s study PRP’s vote base is not created by simply eroding TDP’s voterbase or by division of anti-incumbency but PRP weaned away votes from TDP and INC in an equal measure (K C Suri 2009: 110).
4. 2014
The Concurrent Vidhan Sabha and Lok Sabha elections in 2014 held in the backdrop of bifurcation of state which was facilitated by AP Reorganisation Bill, 2014. Two regions gave distinctive results as Seemandhra region witnessed a impressive victory for TDP-BJP duo resonating with the national mandate whereas in Telangana mandate was clear in favour of Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) whose sole ideology is formation of Teleganastate. This elections were direct contest between TDP-BJP duo and YSRCP, INC which dominated AP politics since formation of the state became nominal player due to the INC’s bifurcation move against the
wish of the people in seemandhra region. Bifurcation sentiments clearly dominated 2014 elections outcomes in both Telangana and Seema Andhra region.
Election results of 2014 was a surprise not only to YSRCP and its leader but also to many political analysts and psephologists who predicted Jagan’s party win. 2014 have seen a close contest between the both as differencebetween vote shares of TDP-BJP duo and YSRCP in assembly elections is just 2.5% (NDA-47.1 (TDP-44.9 & BJP-2.2) and YSRCP-44.6) but this gap was much wider in terms of seats ( 39 seats) as the former won 106 seats and the latter won 67 seats (Table 1, Table 3, Table 4, Figure 1, Figure 3). This picture is not muchdifferent in Lok Sabha elections as a gap of meagre 2.2% turned out as 68% of seats (17 out of 25) to NDA and 32% of seats (8 out of 25) to YSRCP (Table 2, Table 5, Figure 2, Figure 4).
This vote-seat difference can be attributed to multitude of factors like TDP Successful campaign about CBN’s experience and Jagan’s inexperience, Modi factor in urban clusters and some upper castes, Pavan Kalyan support resulted in majority of Kapu’s supporting TDP ( TDP swept polls in Kapu dominated districts like West Godavari and most number in East Godavari), Farm loan wavier etc. As per the analysis of professor Nageshwar in an article in livemint where he said “YSRCP core voter base remained same but it is the TDP’s strength thatgot improved “which is clearly evident if we see YSRCP’s performance in regions where its core voter base concentrated (Rayalaseema, Nellore and Araku regions).
5. 2019
2019 election was a clear battle for mandate on TDP’s 5-year rule and CBN’s governance. There are no externalities like in 2014 that can influence electoral mandate, picture was very clear to people either to vote for TDP or against it. Election mandate of 2019 was not only clear in number but also the quantum of number resonated massive anti-incumbency of people against TDP’s government rule. Naidu’s brainchild Amaravati (World Class Capital), Polavaram project, Pattiseema lift irrigation project (Interlinking of Krishna and Godavari), Plethora of welfare schemes covering all sections of society including much publicized last- minutecredit disbursal to self-help group women (Pasupu Kumkuma) but none of them saved TDP and Naidu. This result also posed a question to parties, do only schemes and development fetches votes?
YSRCP swept the elections with a comprehensive victory and a tremendous seat share of 86.28% (151 out of 175seats) in comparison to 13% (23 out of 175 seats) of TDP. The vote share for YSRCP also rose close to 50% and the TDP could manage to gain only 38% vote share. Picture of Lok Sabha elections is more or less similar to Vidhan Sabha verdict where
YSRCP won 88% of seats (22 out of 25 seats) and TDP won 12% (3 out of 5 seats). The Vote share was almost similar to assembly elections. Players like Janasena who garnered 6% of votes and 1 seat failed to perform across the state except spoil sport of Kapu vote bank division which impacted TDP to an extent. The Congress and the BJP performed extremely poorly securing just 1% of the vote and winning no seat in the Assembly and the Lok Sabha.
YSRCP chief Jagan has been waiting for long-time literally from 9-years for this kind of result. Multitude of factors contributed to Jagan’s landslide victory like his padayatra (walkathon) covering 3,648 km across 13districts of Andhra Pradesh, Success in highlighting TDP’s failure in getting Special Category Status (SCS) to the state, highlighted Naidu’s failure in delivering his core promises like farm loan wavier and SHG women loanwavier etc and came up with his own solution i.e. Navaratnalu (nine gems) promises ranging from affordable healthcare, education, sops for farmers and women, to incentives for sending children to school, booth-level committees creation, Prashanth Kishore’s physical and virtual strategies covering all sections of the society like party’s campaign song Ravali Jagan, Kavali Jagan (Jagan must come, Jagan we want) campaign proved highly successful with the song touching 2.2 crore views on YouTube, catchy slogans like Ninnu Nammam Babu (We don’t believe you Babu) and Bye Bye Babu. All these holistically aided YSRCP to win elections and succeeded in presenting Jagan as an only option for change.
3. Strike Rate Analysis
History presents a narrative of elections in AP where BJP’s performace in will be directly proportional to its alliancepartner TDP’s performance. BJP had a strike rate of 50% in 1999 and 15% in 2014, which is huge when compared to its vote share which hasn’t risen above 4% in all time periods and this due to alliance with TDP. BJP’s strike rate drastically falls down in the years 2004, 2009, and 2019 (7.41%, 0.74%, 0%) where it contested independently without alliance with TDP or its partner lost to wave of anti-incumbency (2004). Lok Sabha elections also shows similar picture of strike rate depending on alliances in 1999, 2014 (87.5%, 50%) whereas in 2004,2009,2019 (0,0,0) result was null without alliance (Figure 7, Figure 8)
INC won a landslide victory in 2004 with a strike rate of 79% in AE and 85% in GE due to alliance with Communist Bloc and TRS but the same party’s downfall in strike rate can be seen in 2009 where it has registered 53.24% (loss of 26% seats) and Lok Sabha elections have a different narrative where alliance partners lost badly due to no alliance with INC and even INC strike rate reduced marginally (84%) (Figure 7, Figure 8).
TDP won the 1999 loksabha election even though it got less percentage of votes than INC which is possible dueto consolidation of votes by the alliance against anti-incumbency wave. Party lost the election in 2004 with astrike rate of 17% only, it impacted its alliance partner BJP’s strike rate badly . However in 2009, it fought with alliance ( Communist Bloc and TRS) and thus improved its strike rate considerably from 17% to 40% , despite losing the election. In 2014, TDP won with the support and alliance from BJP encashing Modi’s wave which resulted in great strike rate of 50% (Figure 7, Figure 8).
YSRCP contested in both 2014 and 2019 elections without alliance and their strike rate is independent of alliance metric (Figure 7, Figure 8).
Figure 7
Figure 8
4. Victory Margin Analysis
2004
2004 elections was a mandate to CBN’s 9-year rule, massive anti-incumbency wave erupted across all 3 regions of the state and for the first time since TDP’s inception in 1983 party recorded lowest seat share whereas picture of INC and its allies was quite contrast where they won 77% of seats.
AE trends resonates the same where 58% of the seats won by INC bloc victory margin was greater than 10%(37% seats — margin > 15%). TDP’s electoral mandate shows how it got impacted by anti-incumbency wave where 70% of seats were won with victory margin less than 10% (40% seats — margin < 5%).
In GE elections trend was more or less similar where 58% of seats were won by INC and its allies with margin greater than 10% where TDP won 80% of seats with margin less than 10%.
2009
Map 1 — Winning Margin 2009 AE
2009 AE was a close contest between INC and Grand alliance (TDP + Left bloc + TRS) which is clearly evident from the winning Margin numbers. Parties won 44% seats with less than 5% margin,28% seats in the margin zone of 5%-10%. Total 72% of the seats were won within 10% margin zone.
Map 2 — Winning Margin GE 2009
2009 GE trends also highlighting close contest between the parties. Parties won 44% seats with less than 5%majority, 40% of seats were won in majority range of 5–10% which shows 84% of parliamentary seats were won within 10% majority range.
2014
2014 elections depicted regionally concentrated victory phenomenon. TDP performed very well in Costal Andhra region excluding Nellore (8 districts) that is evident from victory margin where as YSRCP’s performance was not up to the mark as it won many of the seats in this region with narrow margin except in tribal pockets like Araku where it did well. Picture is completely contrast in Rayalaseema region and Nellore districts where YSRCP dominated electoral landscape.
2014 AE trends reflects the same where 41% of seats were won with less 5% margin, 27% seats were won in the margin zone of 5%-10% which shows 68% of seats were won within 10% majority zone. (Map 3).
2014 GE trends shows 80% of seats were won by parties within 10% majority range (36% seats — <5% margin & 44% seats — (5–10) % margin), only 5 seats were won with greater than 10% majority (Kadapa, Rajampet, Rajahmundry, Srikakulam, Amalapuram) (Map 4).
Map 3 — Winning Margin AE 2014
Map 4 — Winning Margin GE 2014
2019
Map 5 — Winning Margin AE 2019
Map 6 — Winning Margin GE 2019
In 2019 elections voters delivered a crystal clear mandate and this was a pan-state/pan-social group/pan-demography phenomenon. Unlike 2014, YSRCP’s electoral impact was decentralized.It dominated every district and made deep inroads into even political bastions of TDP which were won by them multiple times.
2019 AE trends presents landslide victory picture of YSRCP where 62% of seats were won with greater than 10%victory margin (41% seats — margin > 15%), there are some 16 seats where victory margin was between 25%-50%. The picture of TDP margin is telling another story where 74% of seats were won with majorityless than 10% ( 43% seats — margin < 5%), only 3 seats victory margin was greater than 15% whichclealry shows massive anti-incumbency wave against TDP.
GE trends more or less depicted similar picture where 52% of seats were won with greater than 10% victorymargin ( 20% seats — margin > 15%). TDP’s performance in 12% of the seats it won was also a closecontest as in all the constituences victory margin was less than 1%.
5. Seat Retention
Assembly Elections
Below are the seat retention details of main political parties across the years in assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh -
Table 6 — Seat Retention of parties in AE across years
Figure 8 — Seat Retention of parties in AE across years
Lok Sabha Elections
Below are the seat retention details of main political parties across the years in Lok Sabha elections in Andhra Pradesh -
Table 7 — Seat Retention of parties in GE across years
Figure 9 — Seat Retention of parties in GE across years
Candidate’s Data Analysis
1. Turncoats Analysis
Figure 10
The graph is based on candidates who won. (Position 1)
2014
2014 was a year of turncoats for both YSRCP and TDP, major reason was amalgamation of INC’s voter base andparty cadre resulted in many leaders of congress to change their party.
In AE, among many turncoats from other parties in TDP, 6 of them won the elections and became MLA’s. 17 of YSRCP’s turncoats became MLA’s and Jagan not only squeezed vote and cadre base of INC but also its leaders.
In GE, totally 2 turncoats (TDP-1, YSRCP-1) from both the parties elected as MP’s among many who got tickets (Figure 10).
2019
2019 picture was no different in case of turncoats, 23 YSRCP MLA’s gradually defected to TDP by 2018 (4 of them even conferred with ministerial berths). Voters literally threw out some of the turncoats whereas a few were lucky enough to win in general and assembly elections, most of them defected from TDP and won the elections on the ticket of YSRCP (16 MLA’s & 2 MP’s) (Figure 10).
2. Incumbents Analysis
Number of Incumbents were extremely high for Congress in 2009, with 32 incumbents in assembly and14 incumbents in General Elections. This huge pro-incumbency can be attributed to the performance of Congress in 2004 and the image of YSR Reddy.
2014 was the same for TDP as many as 14 MLA’s and 4 MLA’s won the election again due to the positive wave for CBN and TDP. It was the massive anti-incumbency that played against TDPin 2019 elections after having won 2014 elections most of them lost but the picture of YSRCP is bright where 26 MLA’s and 2 MP’s from YSRCP won the election (Figure 11).
3. Cumulative Profile of MP’S /MLA’s from Andhra Pradesh
2019 AE (15th Assembly)
15th Assembly has 70-first time legislators (45% of the strength of the assembly), this is the highest proportion of first timers in the total strength of assembly in the recent times in line with 2014 strength of 98 firsttimers (56% of the strength of the assembly). 67 out of 70 (96%) of new legislators are from YSRCP most of them won the election against TDP stalwarts and veterans. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu got the distinction of senior-most member of the house (9-time MLA) (Figure 13, Figure 14).
According to ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms), 90% of the MLA’s declared assets are greater than 1 crore and the average assets per legislator stood at 27.87 crore.
More than half of the legislators (96) in the house have criminal cases against them
14 Women elected as MLA’s in 2019 compared 20 women MLA’s in 2014 (Figure 13, Figure 14).
Figure 13
Figure 14
2019 (17th Lok Sabha) — AP Profile
18 out of 25 MP’s (72%) from Andhra Pradesh in Lok Sabha are first-timers, 6 MP’s are second timers and Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy a 4-time MP from YSRCP was the senior-most MP among AP MP’s cohort in 17th Lok Sabha. As per ADR report, 19 out of 25 MP’s annual self-income is greater than 1crore (highest among all MP’s in the country).
4 women MP’s are representing AP in Lok Sabha (16% of total strength) compared to 2 MP’s in 2014 whichmade AP state with second most number of MP’s from a state. Goddeti Madhavi a MP from Araku was one of the youngest MP’s of 17th Lok Sabha (Figure 15, Figure 16).
Figure 15
Figure 16
Primary Sources
http://lokdhaba.ashoka.edu.in/
References
Wiener, Myron. “State Politics in India.” Google Books, Princeton University Press, 8 Dec.2015,
books.google.com/books/about/State_Politics_in_India.html?id=VErWCgAAQBAJ.
Venkatesu, E. “The Last Election in Undivided Andhra Pradesh.” Electoral Politics in India, Mar. 2017, pp. 122–136., doi:10.4324/9781315276625–8.
Suri, K. C. (2002) Democratic process and electoral politics in Andhra Pradesh, India, Working Paper 189 (London: Overseas Development Institute).
Suri, K. C., Narasimha Rao, P. and Anji Reddy, V. 2009. Andhra Pradesh: a vote for the status quo? Economic and Political Weekly, 44(39): 108–113.
Srinivasulu, K. 2009. YSR: a political appraisal. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(38): 8– 11.
Venkatesu, E and K.C.Suri (2014): ‘ Regional Parties win favour in divided Andhra Pradesh’
: The Hindu, May 25. Available https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regional- parties-win-favour-in-divided-andhra-pradesh/article6045196.ece
Sreenivas, J (2019): ‘ How Prashant Kishor, Y S Jagan Reddy outsmarted Naidu in Andhra
Pradesh’ : The Indian EXPRESS, May 24. Available https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-how-prashant-kishor-and-y-s-jagan- reddy-outsmarted-chandrababu-naidu-in-andhra-pradesh-5745856/
Venkateshwarulu, K (2019): ‘ Why Chandrababu Naidu lost and how Jagan Mohan Reddy won’ : The Hindu, May 23. Available https://www.thehindu.com/elections/andhra- pradesh-assembly/new-analysis-why-chandrababu-naidu-lost-and-how-jagan-mohan-reddy- won/article27225325.ece
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/turncoats-in-ap-some-bite-the-dust-a-few- gain-119052401268_1.html
Yogendra, K (2014): ‘ Why Congress and YSRCP lost in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh’ : Live Mint, May 20. Available https://www.livemint.com/Politics/fUXqRCZMyMYo9BFG5KMnNI/Why-Congress-and- YSRCP-lost-in-Telangana-and-Andhra.html
Somasekhar, M (2019): ‘Reddy reckoner in AP’ : The Hindu, May 31. Available https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/know/ys-jaganmohan-reddys- meteoric-success-story/article27375749.ece
Subba Rao, G.V.R (2019): ‘Women turnout kindles hopes of parties’ : The Hindu, April 14. Available https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra- pradesh/women-turnout-kindles-hopes-of-parties/article26837397.ece
ADR report on “Analysis of Criminal Background, Financial, Education, Gender and other Details of Candidates” Available https://adrindia.org/content/lok-sabha- elections-2019-phase-i-analysis-criminal-background-financial-education-gender-0
