Time of Vote Choice in India

Abstract

This piece analyzes the subject Time of Vote Choice in India, a hitherto under-researched aspect of voting behaviour in the country. Using longitudinal data from National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti between 1996 and 2014, it shows that voting intentions of India’s voters are increasingly crystallizing before the start of the campaign period of an election. On the other hand, the proportion of voters postponing their vote choice to after the start of a campaign has declined over the last two decades. This declining trend is unique to India as most Western democracies have registered an overtime increase in campaign-period decision-making. While Indian voters who are less political, less partisan and less exposed to media are more likely to be late deciders than early ones, nevertheless, we also find that late deciders—both campaign-period and last-minute—have gradually become more politically sophisticated and attentive over the years. In this respect, our findings validate both the traditional floating voter theory of the Columbia School and some of the newer studies that have countered it.

Keywords

Vote choice TOVC NES last minute before campaign during campaign late deciders early deciders pre-campaign campaign period voting day national state elections

Introduction

In the study of voting behaviour in India, the subject of people’s vote choice has attracted the greatest amount of attention from scholars. The bulk of research in this field thus far pertains to the political preferences of voters (who are people voting for) and the socio-demographic determinants of these preferences (what decides their vote or why do they vote for the parties or candidates they do). However, relatively little attention has been given to the issue of Time of Vote Choice (TOVC from hereon); that is, when do people make up their mind about who they are going to vote for—early or late—and why do they make their vote choices when they do? Also, is there any overtime trend with respect to TOVC? For instance, is the proportion of late deciders in Indian elections increasing or decreasing with each passing election or is there no clear pattern? Furthermore, who are the people who decide their vote early and who are the voters who do so at the eleventh hour? Is there also a significant chunk that neither decide early nor late but instead during the campaign period? These are questions that no scholar of Indian elections has attempted to answer despite the fact that data that will make these answers possible has been available for a long time. The standard TOVC question (‘When did you make up your mind about whom to vote for’) after all has been asked consistently in post-poll National Election Studies (NES) conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during every Lok Sabha election since 1996 and in post-poll studies conducted by it during most state assembly elections in the same period.³ Yet, no serious exploration of the question has been undertaken. The aim of this article is to address this significant lacuna in voting behaviour research in India by making use of this data. We also believe that apart from its importance to the academic realm, such knowledge on this aspect may also have practical implications for political actors and campaign strategists, who may benefit from knowing which type of voter is likely to make voting decisions at specific times and for what reasons.

Trends of TOVC in India

An analysis of TOVC data from NES conducted during Lok Sabha or national elections since 1996 indicates a clear trend towards early decision-making by voters in India. Whereas in the three national elections held in the late 1990s (1996, 1998 and 1999), last-minute (LM) decision-making (those who decided either on voting day or just a few days before it) outnumbered before-campaign (BC) decision-making (those who decided their vote choice before the commencement of the campaign), the last three elections (2004, 2009 and 2014) have seen the pattern getting reversed (Figure 1). A far greater proportion of voters in these elections decided their vote choice before campaigning started than they did last minute. Pre-campaign TOVC, in fact, has been rising steadily in India over the last two decades. In the 1996 election, only a quarter of all voters had decided their vote choice before the campaign. By 1998 and 1999, early deciders comprised about a third of the electorate. In the 2004 and 2014 elections, nearly half the voters were pre-campaign deciders. In between, in 2009, there was a slight dip in the proportion of pre-campaign deciders, with a sizeable chunk of voters deciding their vote choice during campaign (DC). However, even in 2009, the share of early deciders was higher than the elections of the late 1990s. Thus, broadly speaking, early choice making in India during national elections has been a rising trend. On the other hand, the trend with respect to last-minute crystallization of vote choice has been opposite. The proportion of voters deciding their vote choice very late has consistently declined with each successive national election held since mid-1990s. In 1996, nearly three in five voters fell in this category. By 1999, their proportion declined to two in five, and in 2009 and 2014, such voters comprised only a quarter of all voters. Even if we were to disaggregate this category of LM deciders into two separate categories, namely, ‘voting day’ deciders and ‘eve of voting day’ deciders, a declining trend is still seen (Figure 2). The trend also stays the same even when we treat late deciders as an aggregation of ‘last-minute deciders’ and ‘campaign-period deciders’ (Figure 3).

Figure 1.

Source: National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during Lok Sabha elections.

Figure 2.

Source: National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during Lok Sabha elections.

These findings also mean that the Indian voter seems to be behaving differently from voters in Western democracies with respect to TOVC. In the West, overtime data indicates that more and more citizens are deciding their vote choice after the start of the campaign. In the USA, for instance, the percentage of post-convention deciders (late deciders) was 33 per cent in 2008 as opposed to 28 per cent in 1948 (Box-Steffensmeier, Dillard, Kimball & Massengill, 2015). In the most recent Presidential election of 2016, this figure was about 38 per cent according to the exit polls (CNN.com, 2016).⁴ In Germany, it rose from 5 per cent in 1965 to 40 per cent in 2009 (Schmitt-Beck & Partheymuller, 2012) and in the Netherlands, from 10 per cent in 1971 to 45 per cent in 2006 (Irwin & Holsteyn, 2008). Similar increases have been witnessed in Australia and Britain (McAllister, 2000). Meanwhile, in their study of 12 countries, Dalton, McAllister and Wattenberg (2000) also found the phenomenon of late decision-making having gone up in 11 countries. One of the reasons for Indian voters to be behaving differently from their Western counterparts could be a further strengthening of partisan commitment among them. While we do not have concrete evidences to support this supposition, there is however some data that at least indicate no weakening of the partisan attachment to have taken place in India. In 1996, 28 per cent of the voters reported feeling close to a party. In subsequent years, the figure either went up or remained the same. Never has it shown a decline below 28 per cent. While people may have shifted their loyalties from one party to another, nevertheless, their degree of attachment to whichever party they support has remained steady, on the whole.

Figure 3.

Source: National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during Lok Sabha elections.

Significantly, not only is the overtime shift away from an LM TOVC true for India as a whole but also the sub-national level shows a similar trend to a large extent. When we disaggregated the NES data state-wise for three national elections—2004, 2009 and 2014 (for other elections, the sample size was not large enough to be broken down)—we found LM TOVC to be consistently on the decline in 16 out of 26 states (61.5 per cent). An increase in it was seen in only three states with the remaining seven states showing no clear pattern. These TOVC trends in states during Lok Sabha elections, however, do not get replicated in the Vidhan Sabha or state assembly elections. Our analysis of TOVC data from three or more successive assembly elections of 17 states found that out of 10 states that showed a declining LM TOVC during national elections, only three showed the same pattern during state elections. These are Assam, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The remaining states either showed a rise (Uttar Pradesh and Haryana) or a fluctuation (Punjab, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh) in LM TOVC. Moreover, none of the three states that showed an increasing LM TOVC in national elections—Delhi, Bihar and Rajasthan—also showed a similar upward trend in their assembly elections. This finding is in consonance with a recent study by Simon Willocq (2016) of national, municipal and regional elections held in Canada, France, Germany and Spain, in which he found that in each of the countries, vote intentions tended to crystallize earlier in national elections than in local and regional elections.

To digress a bit, while most states show divergent overtime trends with respect to the LM TOVC during national and state elections, many do show a pattern when we only take into account the consistency of an LM TOVC. For instance, if we keep 20 per cent as our parameter, seven states—Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan—can be classified as ‘strong late deciding states’ because in three successive national elections and three consecutive state elections held in them, the proportion of LM vote deciders has consistently been over 20 per cent. Three states—Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh—can be categorized as ‘moderately strong late deciding states’ because over one out five voters in these states decided their vote at the last minute during three successive national and two consecutive state elections or vice versa.

Who Decides Late and Early in India

Returning to the broader national picture, even as the trends of TOVC in India do not match with the Western trend, there are however a great deal of similarities between Western studies and our findings for India when it comes to the characteristics of late and early deciders. Table 1 shows that in election after election, LM deciders in India have been less likely to be found among partisans or those who feel close to a particular party. They are also more likely to be found among those voters who give importance to the ‘candidate’ rather than the ‘party’. Conversely, those who vote on the basis of ‘party’ rather than ‘candidate’ are more likely to decide before the campaign. Eleventh-hour deciders are also more prone to be found among those who are less interested in politics and election campaigns (Table 2). Pre-campaign deciders on the other hand are more likely to be found among those more interested in politics and election campaigns. They are also more likely to be drawn from the ranks of those who are more aware about political issues, more exposed to the media and are more independent in deciding who they are going to vote for. Meanwhile, the in-between category of campaign-period deciders presents a mixed picture. While they exhibited traits similar to those of pre-campaign deciders in the late 1990s, for the last decade or so they have been showing traits of both pre-campaign and LM deciders, hence showing no clear pattern.

Table 1.

TOVC by Partisanship (%)

	1996			1999			2004			2009			2014
	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC
Feel close to/like a party	48	14	32	33	23	42	27	14	56	21	25	46	21	18	55
Don’t feel close to/like a party	61	10	20	45	16	31	37	16	43	30	25	35	30	18	43
Voted on basis of party	–	–	–	36	15	45	28	14	56	25	25	42	23	18	52
Voted on basis of candidate	–	–	–	42	31	25	33	17	48	31	29	33	33	18	43
Voted on basis of caste	–	–	–	47	19	23	41	13	41	–	–	–	–	–	–

Source: National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during Lok Sabha elections.

Note: Figures for 1998 are not available.

Table 2.

TOVC by Political Sophistication (%)

	1996			1999			2004			2009			2014
	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC
Interest in politics
High	42	18	35	–	–	–	24	12	63	24	22	49	–	–	–
Some	55	16	25	–	–	–	29	16	53	26	27	39	–	–	–
None	60	9	22	–	–	–	35	14	47	30	25	35	–	–	–
Awareness about politics
High	48	18	29	32	25	39	28	15	55	25	24	43	25	19	48
Moderate	60	9	24	44	17	32	33	13	51	28	27	37	35	16	38
None	63	7	19	49	10	32	36	14	44	29	25	25	31	12	43
Interest in campaign
High	46	19	31	30	23	46	22	12	64	22	23	49	–	–	–
Some	57	15	23	34	25	38	30	18	51	25	27	40	–	–	–
None	59	8	23	46	16	32	35	13	48	30	25	35	–	–	–
Consultation while voting
Consulted no one	55	12	26	–	–	–	29	14	55	23	26	43	24	18	52
Consulted someone	62	11	18	–	–	–	37	16	43	33	25	33	33	19	40
Level of Media Exposure
High	47	16	34	30	28	40	24	14	61	21	24	47	26	17	49
Moderate	57	14	23	35	19	43	30	14	54	25	26	41	25	20	49
Low	57	12	24	40	18	37	33	16	49	27	26	38	27	18	47
None	62	8	19	50	12	27	38	13	43	33	25	29	32	16	39

Source: National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during Lok Sabha elections.

Notes: *Two awareness questions in each year were used to construct an awareness index. Awareness questions dealt with knowledge about major political events and leadership.

Figures for 1998 are not available for any of the independent variables.

These findings are more or less in alignment with the traditional floating voter theory of the Columbia School (Berelson, Lazarsfeld & McPhee, 1954; Lazarsfeld, Berelson & Gaudet, 1948) and the party identification theory of the Michigan School (Campbell, Converse, Miller & Stokes, 1960). At the same time, we also came across evidence that validates some of the more recent Western studies (Chaffee & Choe, 1980; Dalton, 2013; McAllister, 2000; Whitney & Goldman, 1985) that have found many of the late deciders to be getting more politically sophisticated and paying greater attention to the campaign. For instance, while in the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, 39 per cent of LM deciders and 55 per cent of campaign-period deciders were exposed to the news media; by 2014, the figures had jumped to 65 and 71 per cent respectively. Knowledge levels about politics among the two categories have also gone up. Whereas 57 per cent of LM deciders in 1996 were politically aware; in 2014, 84 per cent of them were found to be aware. Similarly, knowledge levels among campaign-period deciders went up from 77 to 90 per cent between 1996 and 2014. With respect to interest in campaign, the trend is not as neat, however. While LM deciders showed a jump from 34 to 37 per cent between 1996 and 2009⁵ in their interest levels, campaign-period deciders showed a decline from 54 to 43 per cent in the same period. What is however significant is that be it 1996 or 2009 or 2014, political sophistication and attentiveness to the campaign among campaign-period deciders have always been higher than LM deciders.

Our analysis of the NES data also reveals relationships between several socio-demographic variables and TOVC (Table 3). In India, women are more likely to postpone their vote choice than men. During all national elections since 1996, a greater proportion of women than men have decided their vote choice just on the eve of voting. Men on the other hand have always shown a greater propensity than women to decide earlier—be it during the campaign or before it. Although the gap between the two genders across all three categories—LM, DC and BC—has narrowed over the years, the pattern has remained unchanged. In terms of locality, voters living in rural areas have consistently tended to decide last minute, much more than voters living in urban areas who are mostly early deciders. Age does not show much of a pattern. Younger voters were slightly more likely to decide at the eleventh hour than older voters in 1996 and 1998; however, this pattern reversed in 1999, and in the elections held thereafter, there has not been much of a difference between the young and the old with respect to TOVC. Education however impacts TOVC in a major way. The less educated have always tended to delay their voting decision whereas the more educated have been more likely to decide in advance. This too validates the political sophistication theory. An equally neat pattern is witnessed when we examine TOVC by the economic class. The poorer and lower classes have for the last two decades shown a higher proclivity towards deciding last minute whereas the rich and the middle classes have been more prone to deciding during campaign or earlier than that. A reflection of the class findings can also be seen to some extent in the findings by Hindu castes and communities. Hindu Adivasis or STs, a sizeable proportion of who are poor, have always been more likely to delay their TOVC than other Hindu communities. Hindu upper castes, the most prosperous of all, meanwhile showed the opposite tendency. Class and caste do not seem to neatly overlap, however, with respect to Dalit TOVC. Dalits, also among the poorest, are found to be less likely than the OBCs to decide last minute. Instead Dalits, like the upper castes, are more prone to arriving at a decision pre-campaign. In terms of religious backgrounds, we find that except for the 1996 election, Christian voters have almost always been more likely to decide their vote much in advance as compared to voters belonging to other religious communities. Since 2004, Sikh voters have also shown a similar tendency. Meanwhile, during the same period (2004–2014), Hindus and Muslims have been more likely to decide last minute than others. Moreover, the two communities have usually mirrored each other with respect to TOVC. Finally, our analysis of TOVC by party choice finds that voters of the Left parties have always locked their vote much earlier compared to voters of the BJP alliance or the Congress alliance. Barring 2004 and 2014, those voting for the BSP have mostly tended to decide at the eleventh hour rather than much in advance.

Table 3.

TOVC by Socio-demographics

	1996			1998			1999			2004			2009			2014
	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC	LM	DC	BC
Gender
Men	53	14	27	52	14	31	37	22	38	29	15	53	26	27	39	26	19	48
Women	61	9	20	57	10	27	45	14	32	35	14	46	29	23	36	28	17	45
Age
Over 50 years	55	11	25	53	12	30	43	15	34	31	13	51	27	23	40	28	17	46
41–50	56	12	24	55	11	28	40	18	36	31	14	51	26	25	39	26	18	47
31–40	57	11	24	54	13	28	40	20	34	32	16	50	28	26	37	26	19	48
23–30	58	12	22	55	12	30	40	20	36	33	15	50	27	26	37	28	18	47
18–22	60	11	22	56	10	30	39	18	39	34	15	49	29	25	35	28	19	46
Locality
Urban	51	14	29	46	12	39	35	21	39	29	15	53	25	26	39	24	17	51
Rural	59	11	22	57	12	26	42	18	34	33	14	49	28	25	37	29	18	45
Education
Graduate	49	20	28	43	19	36	32	27	39	24	16	59	21	26	42	24	18	51
Up to matric	52	14	28	51	15	32	34	23	40	30	16	52	26	27	39	28	19	46
Up to primary	57	13	24	55	10	31	42	18	36	33	15	50	29	24	38	26	19	47
Non-literate	62	7	19	60	9	24	46	14	31	37	13	45	31	23	34	30	16	43
Class
Rich	44	19	30	–	–	–	36	24	35	26	15	56	21	26	44	20	19	53
Middle	55	13	26	–	–	–	40	22	34	31	16	51	24	27	40	28	18	47
Lower	56	11	24	–	–	–	42	18	34	34	15	48	27	25	38	27	18	46
Poor	61	9	19	–	–	–	42	15	37	36	13	47	30	24	35	27	17	46
Caste
Upper caste	53	13	27	47	13	35	38	23	35	30	16	52	25	25	40	26	17	50
OBC	60	10	21	57	12	28	42	19	34	35	13	48	29	25	37	28	17	45
SC	59	10	22	55	11	28	38	14	39	34	13	50	28	25	37	28	16	48
ST	73	7	13	61	10	21	50	12	29	35	15	46	32	25	31	31	21	35
Religion
Hindu	58	11	23	55	12	29	40	18	36	33	14	50	28	25	37	28	18	46
Muslim	52	14	30	56	11	31	43	18	33	31	16	49	28	26	35	27	18	48
Christian	54	11	27	50	15	34	41	19	38	24	16	57	19	20	53	16	15	59
Sikh	44	24	11	55	17	24	42	15	19	20	18	57	10	24	57	14	29	51
Party vote
Cong+ voters	55	10	28	56	11	30	40	15	39	34	14	50	26	23	42	30	17	45
BJP+ voters	58	11	25	58	11	27	40	19	37	33	14	52	31	27	33	30	18	45
Left	48	11	33	39	14	40	30	17	47	20	13	65	16	30	47	14	24	54
BSP voters	56	10	24	54	12	29	49	21	20	32	11	50	37	22	30	27	10	57
Others	61	14	17	53	12	30	47	27	21	34	19	44	27	26	38	26	17	50

Source: National Election Studies conducted by Lokniti-CSDS during Lok Sabha elections.

Conclusion and Discussion

Our article has attempted to analyze the time of people’s vote choice in India, a hitherto under-studied aspect of voting behaviour in the country. We have shown that voting intentions of India’s voters are increasingly crystallizing before the start of the campaign period of an election. Conversely, the proportion of voters postponing their vote choice to after the start of a campaign has declined over the last two decades. This declining trend is unique to India as most Western democracies have registered an overtime increase in the campaign-period decision-making. Our findings validate both the traditional floating voter theory of the Columbia School and some of the newer studies that have countered it. While Indian voters who are less political, less partisan and less exposed to media are more likely to be late deciders than early, nevertheless, we also find that late deciders—both campaign-period and LM—have gradually become more politically sophisticated and attentive over the years.

We believe that our results have two paradoxical implications for political actors and their campaigning strategies. First, the lessening share of late deciders in the electorate means that there are fewer voters for them to target during the peak campaigning period and the fact that they are more likely to be drawn from those with low exposure to news media, low levels of education and low interest in politics makes them more difficult to reach to and influence. At the same time, their proneness to be apartisan, coupled with the fact that they have over the years become more media-exposed and attentive, make them promising subjects for campaign effects, which in a close election can prove to be crucial. Second, since voters in India are increasingly firming up their vote before the start of the campaign, parties may be tempted to start getting their message across to the voters several months before the voting day. However, they may not find this to be feasible since early deciders are more likely to be found among partisans, hence making them least susceptible to campaign influence and messaging.

We believe that we have only scratched the surface on the subject of TOVC and that there is scope for more rigorous research on it. The theories of cross-pressure and ambivalence, for instance, are definitely worth testing. It has been argued that voters who delay their timing of vote choice do so because of identity and opinion-related cross-pressures experienced by them that pull them in different political directions (Berelson et al., 1954; Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). It has also been asserted that those torn between their party identification and their candidate evaluation decide late (Campbell et al., 1960). Related to this early cross-pressure theory are the recent concepts of internal and external ambivalence (Lavine, 2001; Mutz, 2002; Nir, 2005). A voter is said to be internally ambivalent when he or she has inconsistent political attitudes or when he or she perceives several parties or candidates or competing considerations as being similarly attractive. External ambivalence refers to a situation in which a voter’s multiple cross-cutting social identities make him or her encounter contradictory political messages within his or her social environment. Both aspects of ambivalence have been shown to be positively associated with late-decision making in the West. Young researchers may want to dig deeper into the NES data and explore if this holds true for India as well.

Over the last two decades, Lokniti has conducted large-sized sample surveys in India during every national election as well as nearly all state elections. These surveys have attempted to study voters’ political choices, their voting behaviour and their opinions on a whole host of political issues. The consistency of the exercise has resulted in the creation of a vast archive of data on Indian democracy. While several scholars of Indian politics have referred to these from time to time for their own research needs, an adequate exploration of this rich archive with a view to inform and ideate about trends in Indian politics is lacking. From this issue onwards, this section of Studies in Indian Politics attempts to fill this gap by bringing to its readers short analytical pieces that make use/sense of Lokniti’s longitudinal survey data sets. The idea is to present empirical insights and research ideas emanating from the Lokniti archives to students and scholars of politics.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Berelson

Bernard R.

, Lazarsfeld

Paul F.

, & McPhee

William N.

(1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Box-Steffensmeier

Janet

, Dillard

Micah

, Kimball

David

, & Massengill

William

. (2015). The long and short of it: The unpredictability of late deciding voters. Electoral Studies, 39(September), 181–194.

Campbell

Angus

, Converse

Philip

, Miller

Warren

, & Stokes

Donald

. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

Chaffee

Steven

, & Choe

Sun

. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(1), 53–69.

CNN.com. (2016). Exit polls: 62% decided vote before September. Retrieved 15 December 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/08/first-exit-polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tsr.cnn

Dalton

Russell

. (2013). The apartisan American: Dealignment and changing electoral politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Dalton

Russell

, McAllister

Ian

, & Wattenberg

Martin

. (2000). The consequences of partisan dealignment. In Russell Dalton & Martin Wattenberg (Eds), Parties without partisans (pp. 37–63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Irwin

Galen

, & Van Holsteyn

Joop

. (2008). What are they waiting for? Strategic information for late deciding voters. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(4), 483–493.

Lavine

Howard

. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. The American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915–929.

10.

Lazarsfeld

Paul F.

, Berelson

Bernard R.

, & Gaudet

Hazel

. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

11.

McAllister

Ian

. (2000). Rational or capricious? Late deciding voters in Australia, Britain and the United States. A paper prepared for the workshop ‘Do Campaigns Matter?’ 28th Joint Sessions, European Consortium for Political Research, Copenhagen, 14–19 April 2000.

12.

Mutz

Diana

. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. The American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

13.

Nir

Lilach

. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(4), 422–442.

14.

Schmitt-Beck

Rüdiger

, & Partheymüller

Julia

. (2012). Why voters decide late: A simultaneous test of old and new hypotheses at the 2005 and 2009 German federal elections. German Politics, 21(3), 299–316.

15.

Whitney

Charles

, & Goldman

Steven

. (1985). Media use and time of vote decision: A study of the 1980 presidential election. Communication Research, 12(4), 511–529.

16.

Willocq

Simon

. (2016). Why do they take longer to make up their mind? A comparative study on late deciding voters in western democracies. Paper presented at EPOP Conference University of Kent, 9–11 September 2016.