NA-15 KARAK

NA - 39 NA - 47
NA - 16 NA - 14
NA - 16 NA - 38
Sunai Karappa NA - 58
Sawan Shaikhan NA - 47 NA - 15
Ishaq
Mattu Khel Kundi Chal Gandi Nizamabad NA - 61
Khumari Jatta NA - 26
NA - 71
Gurgari Buscan Sharki Melu Teri Azad Banda Makori NA -
NA - 4214
Alwar Kili Zanaka Chakhtu Sweri Banda NA - 27
Amankot Banda Halala
NA - 72
Bomi Banda Nathpitau Dharangi Blekai NA - 25 NA - 25
Khattaks Kol Pathan Algad
Manzalai Ghar Spinkai Oti Kale Nishpa
Garangai Shewa Tutki Banda Hoti Shinkai Mithan Algad
Dabara Nar
Daggar Zebi Algad Banda Malikdin
Shahidan Deresh Khel
Tangai Algad Tarkha Algad Jandri Hotai
Niaz Kili Shah Khel Akori Banda Daur Kandao
Banda Ghol
Toi Algad Banda Waragha Chal Algad Dab Banda Mator
NA - 47 Sarkai Algad Astra Algad Warghar Khoza
Jala Banda
Tappi
NA-15 Banda Kuz
Kimanai
Ghunda
Latamhar Dab
Shaikh Budin Garuzi Kamangar Manakka Saroba
Surdag Banda Kanda Ziba Kili
Opal Mela Spalkai Bilandai
Aral Banda Sharifwala Arlaka Algadai Dabli
Surli Kili Mamani Kam Chu Ishaq
Samandar Kili Shagai Sarki
Garhi Khel Sadeka
Sarmast Kili Mandau Baloch Soi Khel
Chaprai Kurd Banda Wanki Malanga
Abid Khel Sho Kurd
Sur Ghar
Kosar Siraj Khel Bhoji
Srawana
Shahidan Kili Lal Baz Zarkai Babri Narmia
Bisamand Loana Bangi Sarkai Mir Alam
Zhira
Nandar Laki
NA - 26 Teri Spinzao Registered Voters: Polling Scheme 314,969
Amardin Chipai Shavah
Odin Shah
Registered Voters: Form-XVII 314,969
Mina Khel Nasir NA - 71
Nara Banda Valid Votes: 159,615
Wagai Algad Rejected Votes: 4,284
Mai Waghi Maidan
Yosta Algad Sur Ghar Total Votes Polled: 163,899
N
Zakam Khel Banda Firoz Banda Puki Banda Turnout: 52.0%
W E
NA - 27 Payd Tang
Jarasi Banda Kassi Banda 1 inch = 94.7 miles
S

N A-15 is mostly inhabited by the Barak clan of Khattak tribe.

The area has traditionally been considered a stronghold of
religious parties. A predominantly rural constituency, it
comprises 21 union councils of three tehsils; Karak, Bandah Dawood
Overall Rank by Turnout
Turnout Rank in the Region
Change in Turnout: 2013 Vs. Avg. of 2002-08
195
9
13.3%
Shah and Takht Nasrti1. Khattak, Wazir and Mehsud are major tribes of the Rank by Increase in Turnout 122
2
constituency . Winner's Status: PTI (1st Win)

Registered Voters Voters by Gender

As many as 291,693 voters were registered in the In 2008, 53.1% of the total registered voters were male
constituency in 2008; 16% more than 251,508 registered while 46.9% were female. On the other hand, the share of
voters in 2002. Compared to 2008, the number of female voters came down from 46.9% in 2008 to 43.7% in
registered voters went up 8% in 2013, reaching 314,969. 2013.

Figure 1: Number of Registered Voters 2002 to 2013 Figure 2: Registered Voters by Gender
314,969 56.3%
53.1%
291,693 46.9%
251,508 43.7%

Male Voters
Female Voters

2002 2008 2013 2008 2013

1
Punjab Lok Sujaag, Zila Karak, Taraki Aur Siasat. Pp.35-36
2
Ibid

64 I www.fafen.org
 KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
KARAK
NA-15
2013 Election Results Figure 3: Party Share of Votes in 2013 Elections
PTI won the seat in 2013 securing 31.4% of the polled
Others
votes, followed by PML-N with 18.2%, MDM with 17.8%, 12.3%
MDM PML-N
an independent candidate with 9.6% and JUI with 8.1% of 17.8% 18.2%
the polled votes. The remaining 12.3% of the votes went to
other parties/candidates, while 2.6% votes were rejected. JUI
8.1%
Turnout Analysis IND
9.6% PTI
31.4%
a. Votes Polled
Rejected
In 2008, 113,224 votes were polled in the constituency; Votes
16.2% more than 97,424 in 2002. The increase in the 2.6%
polled votes in 2008 came with 16% increase in the number
Figure 4: Votes Polled 2002 to 2013
of registered voters. The 2013 polls saw a 44.8% increase in
163,899
the number of polled votes when registered voters
increased only 8% over the 2008 elections.
113,224
b. Voter Turnout 97,424
In 2002, 38.7% of the voters exercised their right to vote in
NA-15, a percentage that remained almost the same
(38.8%) in 2008. However, an increase of more than 13%
was registered in the voter turnout in 2013. Voter turnout
increased to 52% in 2013 general elections. 2002 2008 2013
Party Trends Figure 5: Comparative Turnout 2002 to 2013
In 2002, MMA emerged victorious in the constituency with
32.2% of the polled votes. The PPPP stood second with 52.0%
18.2%. Although MMA's share in the polled votes decreased
to 25.3% in 2008, it was still able to retain the seat as the
closest contender – PML-N – received only 19.5% votes.
In 2013 the incumbent lost the seat to PTI which secured 38.7% 38.8%
31.4% of the polled votes. The PML-N stood as the runner-
up once again, though its share came down slightly to
2002 2008 2013
18.2%.
The winner and runner-up's combined share constitued electorate, they also show that apart from MMA and PML-
half of the polled votes in 2002 and 2013 elections, while it N, no contender has been able to retain its share of polled
was 44.8% in 2008. While these statistics suggest a divided votes in more than one general election.

Figure 6: Comparative Party Shares 2002-13

32.2% 31.4%
MMA
25.3%

19.5% PML-N
18.2%
18.2%
PPPP

PTI

2002 2008 2013

www.fafen.org I 65
NA-15
Voting Pattern
The share of winner in the polled votes went down from 32.2% in 2002 to 25.3% in 2008 and back to 31.4%. The first
runner-up has largely maintained its share of polled votes at 18.2%, 19.5% and 18.2% of the polled votes in the three
general elections respectively. The second runner-up saw an increase in its share of polled votes from 13.7% in 2002 to
19% in 2008. In 2013 polls, the second runner-up claimed 17.8% of the polled votes.
While the combined shares of the first and second runners-up exceeded that of winner in 2008 and 2013, it was almost
equal to the share of winner in 2002. The most fragmented pattern was witnessed in 2008 when the winner lost nearly 7%
of its 2002 share while the first and second runners-up increased their share by 1.3% and 5.3% respectively. In 2013, the
first and second runners-up together claimed more votes than the winner despite an increase of 6% in the winner's share.
The constituency can be termed as a case of extremely divided electorate where other contenders have claimed more votes
in the last three elections compared to the combined share of winner and first runner-up.

Figure 7: Vote Consolidation/Fragmentation Patterns 2002 to 2013

32.2%
31.4%
25.3%

19.5%
18.2% 18.2%
19.0% 17.8%

13.7%

2002 2008 2013

Winner Runner-up Third

Margin of Victory
The margin of victory has consistently remained higher than the count of rejected votes in the three elections. The statistics
show that absence of invalid votes could not have changed the results in any of the three elections. The consistent increase
in the number of rejected votes, however, is a concern that reinforces the case for voter education and facilitation to
account for each elector's will.
Figure 8: Comparative Margin of Victory & Rejected Votes 2002 to 2013

21,666

13,613

6,612

4,284
2,636
1,780

2002 2008 2013

Margin of Victory Rejected Votes

66 I www.fafen.org
 KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
KARAK
NA-15
Figure 9: Parallel Vote Tabulation

12.9
17.4
PML-N 21.9
18.2

11.2
18.0
MDM
24.9
17.8

23.9
31.6
PTI
39.4
31.4

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

PVT Estimate ECP Results

Figure 10: Distribution of Registered Voters Election Day Observations at a Glance

291,089 Violations
Observation of Voting Process Reported

Voters with any other form of identification are permitted to vote 2

Voters who have no ID are permitted to vote 0
Polling Officer is not checking the back of each voter's thumb for indelible ink 0
13,3212,401 APO is not requiring each voter to put a thumbprint on the NA ballot counterfoil 1
10,559 - 18,614
APO is not putting official stamp and signing on the back of each NA ballot 0
Male Female Combined APO is not filling out each NA ballot counterfoil with the voter's CNIC and details 0
Polling Scheme PVT Sample
APO is not putting an official stamp and signing each NA ballot counterfoil 0
Figure 11: Distribution of Ballot Stuffing, Polling Station Capture and Voter Intimidation
Polling Station by Type
Polling Officials are marking NA ballot papers on behalf of voters 0
216
Polling agents/ Candidates are marking NA ballot papers on behalf of voters 1
Security Officials is marking NA ballot papers on behalf of voters 0
Other personal is marking NA ballot papers on behalf of voters 0
Government Officials is trying to influence voters to vote for one candidate/party 0
9 9 15
2 0 Polling Officials are trying to influence voters to vote for one candidate/party 0
Any people with weapons are in the polling booth 0
Male Female Combined
Capture of polling station by one party/candidate 0
Polling Scheme PVT Sample
Observation of Counting Process
Categories of Received Form XIV Polling Station closes before 5:00 pm 2
Category-A 0 Category-B 1 Polling officials didn’t check the stamp and signature on the back of each NA ballot 3
Category-C 16 Category-D 0 Polling officials didn’t count two times the NA ballots in each candidate pile 6
Polling officials didn’t call out loudly if they find a ballot without stamp/signature 4
Figure 12: Comparative Turnout Polling officials didn’t put ballots without a stamp/signature in the Invalid pile 3
by Type of Polling Stations
54.9% 48.9% 52.0% Polling officials did not create one pile for “invalid” NA ballots 4
48.2%
Polling officials did not fill out the "NA Ballot Account Form” 1
Not all polling agents sign the NA "Statement of the Count” 3
0.0% Polling officials did not carefully pack all NA materials in separate envelopes 0
Male Female Combined PVT ECP Presiding Officer did not sign NA "Tamper Evident Bag” 0
Projected Turnout
Turnout ± 0.7% Polling officials did not post copy of "Statement of the Count" outside the PS 11

www.fafen.org I 67