ONE NATION ONE ELECTION

Long-Term Project for Data Management Lab

Submitted By Submitted to;

KRITIPAL KUMAR Prof. RAJAN YADAV
KOMAL SAHU DSM, DTU
KAPISH YADAV
KARTIKEY VASHISHT MISHRA
HIMANSHU
KARTIK
PREFACE
We are delighted to present our study project, "One Nation, One Election." As
DSM, DTU students, we have begun on an academic initiative to conduct a
comprehensive survey to gather ideas, opinions, and impressions about the concept
of holding simultaneous elections at the national and state levels in India.

"One Nation, One Election" is a major and thought-provoking concept that

proposes to streamline India's electoral process by holding Lok Sabha (national)
and State Assembly (state) elections concurrently. This concept has sparked
substantial debate in intellectual and political circles, and it has the potential to
have a tremendous impact on our country's democratic fabric.

The purpose of this poll is to investigate several aspects of One Nation One
Election, such as its benefits, obstacles, potential consequences, and overall
viability. Our goal is to understand public attitude toward this subject, including
the causes influencing your opinions, your level of awareness of it, and any
potential issues you may have.

Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary, and your comments will be
kept completely personal and anonymous. We guarantee that your contributions
will be utilized solely for academic and research objectives.

The survey data will be rigorously evaluated using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), a well-known and capable data analysis tool. The findings
will be carefully evaluated in order to provide relevant insights into public opinion
on the notion of One Nation, One Election, shedding light on its potential
ramifications for our democratic system.

We are grateful for your cooperation in this important research effort. You can
help us develop a more informed and thorough study of this by contributing your
opinions and experiences. You will contribute to a more educated and
comprehensive understanding of this important topic. We believe that your
feedback will be useful in contributing to India's ongoing discussion concerning
election reforms.

Thank you for your time and contribution.

Interpretation of Frequency Table:

The data presented in the frequency table reveals the distribution of respondents' professions in
the sample. Of the 18 participants, the majority identified as "Student" (n = 10, 55.6%), followed
by "MBA" (n = 1, 5.6%), "PhD Scholar" (n = 1, 5.6%), "CA" (n = 1, 5.6%), "Retail Sale" (n = 1,
5.6%), "Cloud Architect" (n = 1, 5.6%), "Software Developer" (n = 1, 5.6%), "Development
Sector - Mid-level Management" (n = 1, 5.6%), and "Contracts and Claims Consultant" (n = 1,
5.6%).

Profession

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Student 10 55.6 55.6 55.6
MBA 1 5.6 5.6 61.1
Phd Scholar 1 5.6 5.6 66.7
CA 1 5.6 5.6 72.2
Retail sale 1 5.6 5.6 77.8
Cloud Architect 1 5.6 5.6 83.3
Software Developer 1 5.6 5.6 88.9
Development Sector - Mid 1 5.6 5.6 94.4
level Management
Contracts and claims 1 5.6 5.6 100.0
Consultant
Total 18 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents were students (n = 10, 55.6%), with smaller proportions identifying
as MBA, PhD Scholar, CA, Retail Sale, Cloud Architect, Software Developer, Development
Sector - Mid-level Management, and Contracts and Claims Consultant, each comprising 5.6% of
the sample.
How strongly do you agree with this Idea on a scale of 1-5 *
Gender Crosstabulation

Gender
Male Female Total
How strongly do you agree 2 1 0 1
with this Idea on a scale of 3 4 2 6
1-5 4 3 0 3
5 4 4 8
Total 12 6 18

Interpretation:
The crosstabulation displays the distribution of responses to the question "How strongly do you
agree with this Idea on a scale of 1-5" by gender.
 Among male respondents, 2 individuals (out of 12) chose a response of 2, 4 individuals
selected a response of 3, 3 individuals chose 4, and 4 individuals selected 5.
 Among female respondents, 1 individual (out of 6) chose a response of 1, 2 individuals
selected 3, and 4 individuals selected 5.

Among male respondents, 16.7% selected a response of 2, 33.3% chose 3, 25% selected
4, and 33.3% chose 5. Among female respondents, 16.7% selected 1, 33.3% chose 3, and
66.7% selected 5.
STATISTICS

The responses of 18 participants to different statements related to "One Nation One Election"
on a scale of 1-5:
 The mean (average) response to each statement ranges from approximately 2.89 to 4.39,
indicating varying levels of agreement or disagreement.
 The median (middle value) for each statement falls in a similar range, indicating the
central tendency of responses.
 The mode (most frequently occurring value) for each statement is often either 4.00 or
5.00, suggesting that these response values were commonly selected by participants.
 The total sum of the responses to each statement is provided.

The table provides an overview of the mean, median, mode, and total responses for each
statement, indicating the participants' opinions on the various aspects of "One Nation One
Election."
One Nation One Election can help reduce political polarization in
India.
Cumulati
Frequenc Valid ve
y Percent Percent Percent
Valid HIGHLY 2 11.1 11.1 11.1
DISAGREE
DISAGREE 4 22.2 22.2 33.3
NEUTRAL 7 38.9 38.9 72.2
AGREE 4 22.2 22.2 94.4
HIGHLY 1 5.6 5.6 100.0
AGREE
Total 18 100.0 100.0
 One Nation One Election can help reduce the burden on the
administrative machinery.
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid DISAGREE 3 16.7 16.7 16.7
NEUTRAL 2 11.1 11.1 27.8
AGREE 8 44.4 44.4 72.2
HIGHLY 5 27.8 27.8 100.0
AGREE
Total 18 100.0 100.0
CROSSTAB

Interpretation:
 For each of the three variables ("Age," "Gender," and "Profession"), there are 18 valid
cases, indicating that there are no missing values for any of these variables.
 The percentage of valid cases for each variable is 100.0%, meaning that all responses are
complete and there are no missing values.
This information confirms that there is no missing data for these variables, ensuring that the
dataset is complete and can be analyzed without any data imputation.
Interpretation:
The crosstabulation illustrates how respondents' opinions regarding the idea on a scale of 1-5 are
distributed across different age groups:
 Among respondents aged 21-25, 10% selected a response of 2, 30% selected 3, 30%
selected 4, and 40% selected 5.
 Among respondents aged 26-30, 50% selected a response of 3, 50% selected 4, and 50%
selected 5.
 Among respondents aged 31-35, 100% selected a response of 4.
 Among respondents aged 36-40, 100% selected a response of 5.
The table provides an overview of the distribution of responses by age group. It's evident that
responses vary across age groups, with different levels of agreement or disagreement with the
idea.
Analysis:
1. "One Nation One Election can streamline the electoral process in India": The
responses for this statement range from 2.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.9444. The standard
deviation (SD) is 0.93760, suggesting moderate variability in responses. The majority of
respondents tend to agree or strongly agree with this idea.
2. "One Nation One Election can reduce the cost of conducting elections in India":
Responses for this statement range from 3.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 4.3889. The SD is
0.69780, indicating less variability. Most respondents strongly agree or agree with this
idea.
3. "One Nation One Election may enhance the efficiency of the government":
Responses range from 1.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.6111. The SD is relatively high at
1.14475, suggesting greater variability in opinions. Some respondents strongly disagree
while others agree.
4. "One Nation One Election can help reduce political polarization in India":
Responses vary from 1.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 2.8889. The SD is 1.07861, indicating
substantial variability. Opinions are more diverse, with some strongly disagreeing and
others having neutral or moderate agreement.
5. "One Nation One Election can better align national and state priorities": Responses
range from 2.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 4.0556. The SD is 0.93760, suggesting moderate
variability. The majority agrees with this idea.
6. "One Nation One Election can pose practical challenges in implementation":
Responses vary from 1.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.6667. The SD is 1.23669, indicating
substantial variability. Some respondents express strong concerns, while others have a
more positive outlook.
7. "One Nation One Election may lead to a more informed and engaged electorate":
Responses range from 2.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.6111. The SD is 0.97853, indicating
moderate variability. Opinions are relatively balanced.
8. "How strongly do you agree with this Idea on a scale of 1-5": The overall agreement
with the idea has a mean of 4.0000 and a moderate SD of 1.02899, suggesting some
variability in agreement levels among respondents.
9. "One Nation One Election may compromise the autonomy of states in India":
Responses range from 2.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.2222. The SD is 0.87820, indicating
moderate variability. Opinions vary, with some concerns about state autonomy.
10. "One Nation One Election can have a positive impact on the Indian democratic
system": Responses range from 2.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.6111. The SD is 0.97853,
suggesting moderate variability. Opinions are relatively balanced.
11. "One Nation One Election can help reduce the burden on the administrative
machinery": Responses vary from 2.00 to 5.00, with a mean of 3.8333. The SD is
1.04319, indicating substantial variability. Some respondents strongly agree, while others
have reservations.
Interpretation:
The data reflects a range of opinions on the concept of "One Nation One Election." While some
statements, such as reducing the cost of elections and aligning national and state priorities, are
more positively received, others, like concerns about state autonomy and potential practical
challenges, exhibit greater variability in responses.
The mean scores provide a sense of central tendency for each statement, while the standard
deviations indicate the extent of variation in responses. Understanding this variability is crucial
for recognizing that opinions on this topic are diverse, and there is no uniform consensus among
respondents.
These findings suggest that there is no single prevailing viewpoint, and further analysis or
exploration may be needed to understand the factors influencing these diverse opinions and
preferences.

ANNOVA
SOME ASSUMPTIONS IN INOVA
 Normal distribution
 Homogeneous
 Independent observations
FORMS OF ANOVA
 Simple analysis of variance
 Two ways analysis of variance
 Multivariate analysis of variance
For this analysis we have chosen Multivariate analysis of variance
Dependent Variable: How strongly do you agree with this Idea on a scale of 1-5
Predictors: (Constant), Profession, Gender, Age
Here's the analysis and interpretation:
1. Model Summary:
 Sum of Squares (Regression): The sum of squares due to regression is 2.331.
 Degrees of Freedom (df, Regression): 3 degrees of freedom for the predictors in
the model.
 Mean Square (Regression): The mean square for regression is 0.777 (Sum of
Squares Regression divided by df).
 F-Value (F): The F-statistic is 0.694.
 Significance (Sig.): The p-value associated with the F-statistic is 0.571.
2. Residual Summary:
 Sum of Squares (Residual): The sum of squares for the residuals (unexplained
variance) is 15.669.
 Degrees of Freedom (df, Residual): 14 degrees of freedom for the residuals.
 Mean Square (Residual): The mean square for the residuals is 1.119.
3. Total Summary:
 Total Sum of Squares (Total): The total sum of squares is 18.000.
 Total Degrees of Freedom (df, Total): 17 degrees of freedom for the total model.

Interpretation:
The ANOVA table provides information about the overall fit of the regression model, which aims
to predict the level of agreement with the idea based on the predictor variables (Profession,
Gender, and Age).
 The F-statistic tests whether the regression model as a whole is statistically significant. In
this case, the F-value is 0.694, and the associated p-value (Sig.) is 0.571. If the p-value is
less than the chosen significance level (e.g., 0.05), it suggests that the model is
statistically significant. However, in this case, the p-value is greater than 0.05, indicating
that the regression model is not statistically significant.
 The predictors in the model include "Profession," "Gender," and "Age." However, the
ANOVA table doesn't provide information about the individual significance of each
predictor.
In summary, based on the ANOVA table, the regression model, which includes "Profession,"
"Gender," and "Age" as predictors, does not show statistically significant results in predicting the
level of agreement with the idea. This suggests that the combination of these predictors does not
provide a strong explanation for the variation in respondents' agreement levels. Further analysis
or adjustments to the model may be necessary to explore the relationships between these
predictors and the dependent variable more deeply.

1. Model Summary:
 The model includes three predictor variables: "Age," "Gender," and "Profession."
 The dependent variable is "How strongly do you agree with this Idea on a scale of
1-5."
2. Coefficients:
 Constant: The intercept or constant value is 4.038. This represents the estimated
mean or predicted value of the dependent variable when all predictor variables are
set to zero.
 Age: The unstandardized coefficient for "Age" is -0.409. This coefficient
represents the change in the dependent variable for a one-unit change in "Age"
while holding other variables constant. It has a standard error of 0.376.
 Gender: The unstandardized coefficient for "Gender" is 0.618. This coefficient
represents the change in the dependent variable for a one-unit change in "Gender"
while holding other variables constant. It has a standard error of 0.567.
 Profession: The unstandardized coefficient for "Profession" is 0.069. This
coefficient represents the change in the dependent variable for a one-unit change
in "Profession" while holding other variables constant. It has a standard error of
0.113.
 3. Standardized Coefficients (Beta):
 Beta values indicate the standardized contribution of each predictor variable to the
dependent variable. They allow for a comparison of the relative importance of
predictors in the model.
 "Age" has a Beta value of -0.338, "Gender" has a Beta value of 0.291, and
"Profession" has a Beta value of 0.186.
4. t-Values and Significance (Sig.):
 The t-values measure the significance of each coefficient. A larger absolute t-
value indicates greater significance.
 The associated p-values (Sig.) provide the statistical significance of each
coefficient. A small p-value (typically less than 0.05) suggests that the coefficient
is statistically significant.
 In this case, the t-values and p-values for "Age," "Gender," and "Profession"
suggest that none of the coefficients are statistically significant. This implies that
the predictors do not have a statistically significant impact on the dependent
variable.
Interpretation:
The coefficients table shows the estimated effects of "Age," "Gender," and "Profession" on
respondents' agreement with the idea on a scale of 1-5. However, based on the t-values and
associated p-values, none of the predictors are statistically significant. This means that, in the
current model, none of these predictors have a significant influence on the level of agreement
with the idea.
It may be necessary to explore alternative models, additional predictor variables, or data
transformations to better understand the relationships between these variables and respondents'
agreement levels. Additionally, a larger sample size could lead to more robust and interpretable
results.
T-Test

Profession:
 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances: This test is used to assess whether the variances
of the two groups are equal. The F-statistic is 16.085, and the associated p-value (Sig.) is
0.005, indicating that the assumption of equal variances is violated (p < 0.05).
 t-test for Equality of Means: The t-test is used to compare the means of the two groups.
With equal variances assumed, the t-value is 1.181, and the two-sided p-value is 0.138,
which is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). With equal variances not assumed, the t-
value is 1.729, and the two-sided p-value is 0.072, which is also not statistically
significant.

Age:
 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances: The F-statistic is 3.646, and the associated p-
value (Sig.) is 0.098, indicating that the assumption of equal variances is not violated (p >
0.05).
 t-test for Equality of Means: The t-value is 1.193, and the two-sided p-value is 0.136,
which is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). With equal variances not assumed, the t-
 value is 1.746, and the two-sided p-value is 0.071, which is also not statistically
significant.
Gender:
 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances: The F-statistic is 18.667, and the associated p-
value (Sig.) is 0.003, indicating that the assumption of equal variances is violated (p <
0.05).
 t-test for Equality of Means: With equal variances assumed, the t-value is 1.080, and the
two-sided p-value is 0.158, which is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). With equal
variances not assumed, the t-value is 1.581, and the two-sided p-value is 0.087, which is
also not statistically significant.
Interpretation:

1. Profession: The p-value from Levene's test suggests unequal variances between groups.
However, in both cases (equal variances assumed and not assumed), the t-test results
show that there is no statistically significant difference in means between groups.
2. Age: The assumption of equal variances is met (p > 0.05). The t-test results also indicate
that there is no statistically significant difference in means between groups.
3. Gender: Levene's test suggests unequal variances. In both cases, the t-test results show
that there is no statistically significant difference in means between groups.

In summary, based on the results, there is no evidence of statistically significant differences in

the means of the groups based on "Profession," "Age," or "Gender." The p-values in all cases are
greater than the typical significance level of 0.05. This suggests that, in this analysis, these
variables do not have a significant impact on the "How strongly do you agree with this Idea on a
scale of 1-5" variable.

REPORTNG IN APA FORMAT

"A simple linear regression was calculated to
predict participant's weight based on their number
of shoes.
A significant regression equation was found (F(3,14) — .694, p — .571), with an R2 of .129
Participants predicted “How strongly do you agree with this Idea on a scale of 1-5” is equal to
4.038-.409+.618+.069
x (number of Participants).