A visualisation of what a vote really means and why it remains the way it is.
The concept of “one man, one vote” ensures political equality in a democracy. Simply put, this means every citizen’s vote is equally
powerful - carries the same amount of power.
While this seems like a fair policy, it has not been fully or easily implemented in the Indian political context. As a result, not every
individual’s vote is equally powerful; even though each Indian voter can cast only one vote to elect one MP (Member of Parliament) to
represent him or her in the Lok Sabha.
As is visible below, there are disparities in vote values between constituencies. In other words. one vote in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
has the same weight as 6.72 votes in Agra. Voters in Agra are under-represented while voters in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are over-represented.
The vote values are calculated by dividing every constituency's elector count by the elector count of the largest constituency.
The vote of a person living in Malkajgiri carries only 1/72 the value of a Lakshadweep resident's vote.
This phenomenon of disparity in the value of a vote within a state is called malapportionment. However, this phenomenon is a violation of the "one man, one vote" principle that most
democracies try to adhere to. In other words, it is what happens when the value of a citizen's vote is not uniform across all constituencies.
The value of a vote in a given constituency decreases with time, given the increase in the country's population over the years. Take the example of Agra, Ajmer, Barrackpore, Tirupati, and Bastar - one can see that there is a clear decrease in the value of one vote over time. It's the same case with most constituencies in the country. About 96% (Source - Data derived from Lok Dhaba) of the Lok Sabha constituencies have found their vote's value reduce since 1962.
While every vote is guaranteed to be the same, the value depends on how many electors there are in a particular constituency. The greater the number of voters in a constituency, the smaller the value of a person's vote belonging to that constituency. In Uttar Pradesh, for example, one Lok Sabha MP now represents 25 lakh people. In Bihar, the value goes up even further to 26 lakh. In West Bengal, however, the number drops to 22 lakh. In Tamil Nadu, it is 18 lakh and in Kerala only 17 lakh. In effect and indirectly, a Malayali has more than 1.5 times the representation of a Bihari in the Lok Sabha.
With the 2019 Lok Sabha elections approaching, the question of the power of the vote becomes particularly important.
Before you vote next year, here’s a way to find out its value compared to a single vote in a different constituency!
Enter the names of the constituencies and find out. This tool will tell you how much a vote in one constituency scales up to a vote in another constituency
You can note, using the tool, that the disparity between vote values is not as marked within northern constituencies, as it is between the northern and southern constituencies. This North-South divide is a lot more evident when their values are plotted on the map.
Historically, the value of the vote has come up time and again in the Indian Parliament. It looks something like this.
The first ever Lok Sabha commenced with 489 seats.
The last increase in the number of Lok Sabha seats from 520 to 545. The number of seats was fixed at 545. But, the population of India has increased by 134% since then.
In the 84th amendment, the Lok Sabha decided that there will be no increase in the number of seats till 2026. A freeze.
In 1976, the Parliament froze the number of seats in the Lok Sabha, and the populations of the northern states were just a bit higher than the southern states.
That year, the Parliament – then under the Emergency – passed a constitutional
amendment that froze the number of seats each state held in Parliament as per the 1971 Census. Since then, the populations of the northern
states increased a lot faster than the southern states, such that the people of the north outnumbered citizens of the southern states by a large margin (almost 2:1).
The freeze was to end in 2000, so that the parliament could increase the number of Lok Sabha seats. However, in 2001 the Parliament extended this freeze till 2026. This will ensure that until 2026, the
Parliament's seat composition will represent the Indian population from over 50 years ago.
The freeze has ensured that Hindi-speaking states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, (whose populations have outnumbered many other
states owing to their population growth since the freeze) have not seen an increase in their seats in the Parliament as they should have.
The concept of 'One Man - One Vote' is not valid in such a scenario either.
However, if this policy were to change and begin to accommodate for the population increase beginning in ‘71 (the population
has since doubled), we would start seeing the highly fertile northern states of Bihar and UP get a lot more Lok Sabha seats than
ever before. These highly fertile northern states were already occupy a dominant political position as even in 1976, they had the most Lok Sabha seats. This is substantiated by the results
of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. As data from the recent general elections indicates, the Bharatiya Janata Party won 51% of its seats
from just four states – Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh; conicidentally also the states with the highest fertility rates and population.
If the seats were allotted proportionate to population, this percentage would likely have been much higher.
The reallocation of seats according to population, might completely marginalise the southern states, whose population or growth is much lower as
compared to their northern counterparts, as the number of seats they have would be far lesser as opposed to the current number. The southern states have a
fertility rate that is lower than that required for the replacement of their current population, meaning that their seat count would reduce over time. Should we follow a democratic system that makes sure that
malapportionment is never too high, this gap of representation between the north and the south will be one that is ever-widening. This would just breed
disatisfaction amongst the southern states against the government as their representation and the voice in the central government would diminsh. A central
government that does not reflect voices of enough states from all the corners might accomplish this.
These states also contribute more to country's GDP per capita than the northern states, like UP and Bihar. Yet, in return they
recieve much less back from the central government. In a recent Live Mint article, it was reported that for every 1 Rupee that UP gives to the centre,
it gets back 1.79 Rupees back, whereas Karnataka only gets 0.47 Rupees back for every 1 Rupee they give.
The southern states already feel neglected due the aformentioned political and economic disparities.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Vice Chancellor, Ashoka University) thinks that increasing the number of seats in the north to match their new population would "disempower the southern voter".
He also adds by saying that the value should not be thought of something as purely numerical, but rather, a weighted one. He does concede that this does
not justify this disparity but it is a necessary "democratic concession to federalism".
India does not follow a system that avoids malapportionment to prevent the states that are essential to the country's economy and its federal structure from feeling neglected. It knowingly indulges in disproportionate representation to keep everyone
and every state
appeased. If India will continue this practice or not can only be found in 2026 - when the freeze finally expires.
Somewhere around here
Ashoka University, HR
130029