Indian Democracy in 100 Notes · 🗳️ Theme 2: Election Commission & voter rolls
Trust in elections: how democracies measure and rebuild it
Trust in elections is not the same as liking a result. A losing voter can still trust the process if the rules were clear, the count was checkable, and complaints were heard. Conversely, a winning voter may distrust a process that seemed opaque. That distinction is why researchers measure trust separately from vote choice, usually through surveys, turnout and complaint data, and through independent observation of rolls, polling and counting.
In India, the Lokniti-CSDS surveys are a widely cited measure. Reporting of a Lokniti-CSDS study featured in The Hindu in August 2025 described an unprecedented decline in trust in the Election Commission. It reported that just over one-fourth of respondents were "very confident" that all eligible voters would be retained on the rolls, while about one-sixth had "not much" confidence and nearly one in ten had none at all. It also reported sharp falls in high trust in Uttar Pradesh, from 56 per cent in 2019 to 31 per cent in 2025, and in West Bengal, from 68 per cent to 41 per cent, with similar declines noted in Assam, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. The same study found that close to half of respondents believed genuine voters might be removed during SIR verification. These are survey findings about perceptions and confidence, not proof that any particular election was rigged or that any particular deletion was wrongful. Survey wording, timing and sample all affect results, and trust can fall because of real errors, because of political campaigns, or because of both.
Rebuilding trust, as discussed by election scholars and practitioners, usually involves the same ingredients: publish the rules and data behind a decision, allow individual errors to be corrected quickly, give reasons for deletions, keep an audit trail, invite party and civil-society scrutiny, and separate the announcement of a result from the defence of an institution. Transparency alone is not enough if correction is slow, and speed alone is not enough if reasons are missing. For young readers, the test is practical: can an ordinary voter check their own entry, understand a decision about it, and get it fixed before polling day?
Key takeaways
- Trust is measured through surveys, observation and complaint handling, not by who won.
- Lokniti-CSDS reporting in 2025 showed falling confidence in the ECI; that measures perception, not proof of fraud.
- Rebuilding trust depends on clear rules, published reasons, quick correction, and independent scrutiny.
Why it matters for civil studies: Democracies do not run on rules alone; they run on the shared belief that rules were followed, which must be earned again at every election.
Discussion question: If trust falls even when an election is technically well run, whose job is it to restore it — the Commission, parties, courts, media, or voters themselves?
Fact-checked copy, 1 November 2026. Disputed claims are attributed in the text; moving topics should be re-checked at the time of reading.