Voting is a prevalent term in democratic politics. This phrase has become a household name as democratic theory and practice gain popularity. In democratic systems, which are growing in number, each adult citizen uses "voting" to express his approval or disapproval of government decisions, policies, and programmers of various political parties and the qualities of candidates who are fighting to become the people's representatives. Studying electoral behavior’s determinants is important empirical research. Philosophically, humans are rational, but their economic and political behavior is not. An empirical study of the determinants of electoral behavior shows that human behavior is influenced by many irrational factors and pressure groups, including religious and communal factors, money, charismatic leaders, and others. The present study focuses on Indian voting behavior and the elements that influence it.

1. To analyze the influence of social cleavages on voting patterns
2. To examine the impact of economic and political changes on voter demographics
3. To explore factors affecting voting behavior

Chhibber's (1999) seminal work "Democracy Without Associations: Transformation of the Party System and Social Cleavages in India" explores the transformation of the Indian party system and its impact on voting behavior. The author argues that political mobilization in India is significantly influenced by social cleavages such as caste, religion, and ethnicity, shaping voter preferences and electoral outcomes.

Yadav, Y. (2000) research on the 1999 Indian general elections provides an in-depth analysis of the emerging trends in voting behavior. The study highlights the role of identity politics, economic factors, and regional variations in shaping voter choices.

Verma (2012) examines the impact of socio-economic factors on voting behavior in his study "Backyard Hindutva: Understanding the Growth of the BJP in the Cities." The author argues that urbanization and economic liberalization have led to new voter demographics that favor the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Sridharan, E. (2004) analysis focuses on coalition politics and its impact on voter behavior. The study "Coalition Politics and Democratic Consolidation in India" explores how coalition governments have influenced voter expectations and electoral strategies.

Roy's (2013) research "Rise of the Plebeians? The Changing Face of India's Legislatures" provides insights into the socio-political changes affecting voter behavior. The author discusses the increasing representation of marginalized communities in legislatures and its impact on electoral dynamics.

Heath, O., & Yadav, Y. (1999) study "The United Colours of Congress: Social Profile of Congress Voters, 1996 and 1998" analyzes the voting patterns of Congress Party supporters. The authors examine the influence of caste, religion, and socioeconomic status on voter preferences.

Palshikar, S., & Kumar, S. (2004) research "Changing Contours of Indian Politics: The BJP's Rise to Power" focuses on the political shifts leading to the BJP's ascendancy. The authors discuss how voter alignments and political strategies have evolved in response to changing socio-political landscapes.

Banerjee's (2014) study "Why India Votes?" provides a comprehensive analysis of the motivations behind voter turnout and preferences. The author explores various factors such as political awareness, party identification, and the role of media in influencing voting behavior.

Meaning of Voting Behavior

                Voting habits Liberal democracies rely on voting, and political science's study of voting behaviour is highly specialised. Voting pattern analysis always examines why and how individuals vote. Sociologists study the correlations between class, occupation, ethnicity, sex, age, and political party support, while political scientists focus on political factors like issues, political programs, electoral campaigns, and party leaders. Both professions cover similar ground and increasingly use similar analytical methods. (M. Harrop and and W. L. Miller , Elections and Voters: A Comparative Perspective, 1987). The literature offers several (non-exclusive) explanations for voting behaviour. Structural (or sociological) approaches study how socioeconomic class, language, nationalism, religion, and rural-urban disparities affect voting. Ecological (or aggregate statistical) techniques relate voting trends to geographic factors. (ward, constituency, state, or whatever). Social psychological approaches tie voting decisions to the voter's psychological predispositions or attitudes, such as party identification, candidate preferences, etc. Finally, rational-choice approaches explain voting behaviour as the result of an individual's instrumental cost-benefit calculations based on the parties' and candidates' issues and policies. These broad approaches use distinct research methods and make different political behaviour assumptions.

The "class dealignment thesis" and the "partisan dealignment thesis" have long debated whether social class has lessened its influence on voting behaviour in Britain. These arguments (see, for example, B. Sarlvik and I. Crewe, Decade of Dealignment, 1983) claim that both absolute class voting (the overall proportion of the electorate who vote for their "natural" class party) and relative class voting (the relative strength of parties in different classes) have declined continuously since the late 1960s, which is linked to the decline in Conservative and Labour Party votes. They blame this dealignment on societal changes like occupational structure, the fall of the manual working class, social mobility, and cross-class families, which undermine class cohesion. Class dispersion has made concerns more relevant in electors' votes, and voters judge political parties as self-interested individuals rather than collectively.

In a similar vein, proponents of consumption-sector cleavages argue that increasing fragmentation has reduced the political distinctiveness of social classes, and that as consumption becomes more important, differences between those who depend on public rather than private consumption of goods and services (like housing, transport, education, and health) are the source of new political alignments. Sectoral distinctions now dominate political debate and voting behaviour. Private consumers support Conservative whereas public users vote Labour. Consumption sectoral cleavage, like class and partisan dealignment, emphasises the media's rising influence on individual interests and its negative impact on working-class support for Labour.

A. Heath et al., Understanding Political Change, 1991, disagree, arguing that class dealignment is a result of partisan dealignment. While absolute class voting has diminished, "trendless fluctuation" in relative class voting implies social classes still have political distinctness. Class remains the biggest factor in voting behavior, while consumption cleavages like housing tenure (which are not unique) are only correlates of class. Heath and his colleagues argue that Labour's electoral failure in the 1980s was mostly due to political failures, particularly the policy failures of the 1964–70 Labour governments and the rising number of third-party (Liberal) candidates in working-class constituencies. Although class organisations like the Labour Party have failed to mobilise this potential in politics, class origins and attitudes still affect voting.

Advances in large-scale data analysis have fueled voting behaviour theory and model debates, making voting behaviour studies a methodological minefield. In their admirable and exhaustive review of this literature, Jeff Manza, Michael Hunt, and Clem Brooks conclude that the relationship between class and voting in the capitalist democracies of Western Europe and North America shows no evidence of a universal process of class dealignment, and that ‘only one conclusion is firm: in no democratic capitalist country has vote been entirely independent of class in a national election’ (Manza, Hunt, and Brooks). Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, Controversies in Voting Behaviour, discuss US controversies. (1993).

Factors Impacting Voting Behavior

Religion, caste, community, language, money, policy or philosophy, poll purpose, franchise, political wave, etc. affect voter behaviour. These elements help political parties and groups win elections. Politicians appeal to religious and communal sentiments and use language and money to win votes, despite their professed secularism. To promote a policy or viewpoint, appeals and canvassing campaigns are issued. The election's purpose or suffrage affects voters' interest and behaviour. Charismatic slogans like "Garibi Hatao," "A vote for a pair of bullocks is a vote for Panditji and progress," "Indira means India, India means Indira," "Indira means Dictatorship," "My heart beats for India," "Rajiv means Bofors," and others influence voters. These aspects can be investigated in Indian electoral behaviour. Several factors influence Indian voting behaviour. This report examined Indian voter determinants. Charisma: Charisma affects voting. It means exceptional quality of a factor and override group elements leader that attracts and reveres large numbers of people, but it can also frighten large numbers of people not to speak or do anything against the mighty leader's wishes. Fortunately, charm has had a positive influence in our elections. Huge attendance at meetings addressed by towering personalities like Nehru, Indira, Vajpayee, Modi and a sudden change in voters' minds in response to their appeals may be evidence of charisma's role in our people's electoral behaviour. After India's amazing triumph in the Bangladesh War, Mrs. Gandhi's charisma had the same miraculous effect on the public in the 1972 State Assembly elections.Jayaprakash Narayan's image influenced 1977 elections. Rajiv Gandhi's 1984 and V.P.Singh's 1989 personalities had the same effect. Modi led BJP to 2014 victory.Thus, “Where the groups factors are weak or cancel out, this charisma may be the major.”

Caste: Indian voters still consider caste. It underpins all social ties in society. Caste still influences political behaviour despite various laws prohibiting it. Indian politics has long politicised caste and casteism. Indian political parties always include caste when creating policies, programs, and electoral campaigns. Caste influences constituency election candidates. Caste demands votes. Jat Ki Vot Jat Ko, Brahmin vs. Jat, Jat vs Ahir, etc., are frequent "principles" for electoral strategy planning. As Morris Jones says, "Politics is more important to caste and caste is more important to politics than before." Rural Indians speak caste. Caste dominates Indian politics despite democratic norms that envision a caste-free society. It has become one of the main ways Indians have been drawn into democratic politics. The Mandal Commission's recommendation to reserve positions for other Backward Classes (castes) and the political reaction to it show that caste still shapes Indian politics. However, in metropolitan areas, caste no longer determines voting behaviour. Indian politics is becoming issue-based. The paradox persists.

Religion: India's secular state, which guarantees freedom of religion to all, treats all religions equally, and does not recognise any religion as a state religion, has not prevented religion from influencing political and voting behaviour. Religious parties and neo-political organisations like Muslim League, Akali Dal, Hindu Maha Sabha, Shiv sena, and others have kept religion a vote factor. Indian society's religious plurality profoundly affects political parties' power struggles. A constituency's religious majority influences candidate selection. Candidates play the religious card with co-religious voters and the secular card with others. Politicians often use religious spaces, especially during elections. Political parties and others again religiousize social-political concerns. Voters often vote religiously.

India is multilingual: Linguistics also affects voting. The linguistic organisation of states shows how important language is in Indian politics. States have had issues with language status or quality. Language issues easily influence people since they have emotional attachment to their languages. Language always affects voting.

Money Factor: India has many impoverished people. Indian voters are heavily influenced by money. Rich candidates always win elections. It only happens in regular circumstances, not during wave elections or other major concerns. Congress(I) lost power in 1989 despite a costly electoral campaign.

Sub-Nationalism: India's ethnic plurality, communalism, regionalism, and sub-nationalism are harsh realities. Sub-nationalism now heavily influences voter conduct. A separatist group may advocate for an election boycott and use pressure to persuade voters not to vote for a certain party. Some regional political groups, like as some factions of the Alkali Dal, Naga Nationalist Organization, Gorkha League, Jharkha party, AASU, and AAGSP in Assam, have promoted parochial slogans and upset their states' residents. Some political parties have caused some people to organise along limited and parochial lines.

Performance of the Party in Power: Each political party runs on a manifesto, and once in power, it must fulfil its promises. Based on election promises made and fulfilled, the ruling party's performance greatly affects people's behaviour. The Congress (I), which won a thumping majority in 1984, failed to gain even a simple majority in 1989 due to its failure to perform. The Congress Party and Janata Dal lost in 1989 and 1991 because they failed to exercise authority and maintain political stability.The number of "floating voters" or "switchers," who are generally young, educated upper middle class people, has increased.

Mass literacy: Mass literacy has influenced Indian voting habits. Political parties, communal groups, and militant outfits can exploit people's caste, religion, region, and other sentiments due of this weakness. Illiterate voters make up a large section of the electorate, hence their votes can swing elections. Despite this, common sense and maturity from past experience have also influenced voters' minds and actions. They joined to defeat authoritarianism in 1977 and non-performers in 1980.

Indian factionalism From the village to the nation, factionalism dominates politics. No political party, including the cadre-based BJP and the two communist parties, is faction-free. Rajani Kothari notes that it operates at all congress levels. The congress—a political party with a brilliant past, a weak present, and a bleak future—has suffered. Other parties have factionalism too. Some political parties' factionalism is turning voters off. Local and regional parties are less impacted by factionalism due to their tiny organisational networks and operational bases.

Candidate Reputation: A candidate report with constituents or his known attributes or involvement in any value range of activity constantly influences voting behaviour. A voter's choice is influenced by his relationship with the candidate rather than his party affiliation or views on issues. A party's candidate's popularity boosts support. Voters want friendly, helpful candidates.

Election campaigns; Each party aggressively pushes for votes. Mass meetings, street meetings, personal contacts, posters, poster war, film star speeches, TV and radio broadcasts, newspaper advertisement, hand bills, processions, and propaganda are used to win votes, especially floating votes. Election campaigns aim to persuade voters that their interests are best represented by the party and its constituency candidate. Poll-eve campaigning influences voters. A party that can convince voters that it can win can get votes.

1. Akhter, Z., & Sheikh, Y. A. (2014). Determinants of voting behaviour in India: Theoretical perspective. Public Policy and Administration Research, 4(8), 104-108.
2. Akhter, Z., & Sheikh, Y. A. (2014). Determinants of voting behaviour in India: Theoretical perspective. Public Policy and Administration Research, 4(8), 104-108.
3. Banerjee, S. (2014). Why India votes? Routledge India.
4. Bharucha, K. (2003). Impact of Identity Politics on Differential Voter Outcomes: What Determines India's Voting Behaviour?. Economic and Political Weekly, 550-560.
5. Biswas, F. (2023). Electoral patterns and voting behavior of Bihar in Assembly elections from 2010 to 2020: a spatial analysis. GeoJournal, 88(1), 655-689.
6. Chhibber, P. (1999). Democracy without associations: Transformation of the party system and social cleavages in India. University of Michigan Press.
7. Hazarika, B. (2015). Voting behavior in India and its determinants. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 20(10), 22-25.
8. Heath, O., & Yadav, Y. (1999). The united colours of Congress: Social profile of Congress voters, 1996 and 1998. Economic & Political Weekly, 34(34/35), 2518-2528.
9. Kumar, S., & Rai, P. (2013). Measuring voting behaviour in India. SAGE publications India.
10. Palshikar, S., & Kumar, S. (2004). Changing contours of Indian politics: The BJP's rise to power. Journal of South Asian Studies, 27(1), 131-148.
11. Roy, I. (2013). Rise of the plebeians? The changing face of India's legislatures. Routledge India.
12. Sheth, P. N. (1973). Indian electoral behaviour: Patterns of continuity and change. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 199-210.
13. Sridharan, E. (2004). Coalition politics and democratic consolidation in India. Asian Survey, 44(6), 841-864.
14. Verma, R. (2012). Backyard Hindutva: Understanding the growth of the BJP in the cities. Economic & Political Weekly, 47(26-27), 84-95.
15. Yadav, Y. (2000). Understanding the second democratic upsurge: Trends of Bahujan participation in electoral politics in the 1990s. In F. R. Frankel, Z. Hasan, R. Bhargava, & B. Arora (Eds.), Transforming India: Social and political dynamics of democracy (pp. 120-145). Oxford University Press.