A special session of parliament has been convened to discuss Constitutional Amendments for implementing wowen’s reservation in parliament. The proposed amendements, among other things, seek to modify the maximum number of Lok Sabha seats and adjust inter-state distribution seats as well. In order to understand the implications of seat adjustment exercise, this analysis focuses on redistributing seats across India based on the 2011 Census population data.
Objectives:
Total Seats: 850 (States: 815, Union Territories: 35).
States Allocation: 815 seats distributed among States.
UTs Allocation: 35 seats distributed among Union Territories.
No Decrease Rule: No state or UT will receive fewer seats than its current strength.
Method: Proportional allocation (Largest Remainder Method) within each group (States and UTs).
Relative Strength: Compare the percentage of the House each entity holds before and after redistribution.
Data
For each state and union territory– current seats in Lok Sabha, population as per 2011 census and a boolean variable flagging UT status–are recorded.
Current Strength: 543
Target New Strength: 850 (States: 815, UTs: 35)
Allocation Logic for States and UTs
At one level the seat allocation is simple: One has to calculate the population proportion as per 2011 and allocate 815 seats to states and 35 seats to union territories in the same proportion. However, a staightforward application of this logic will create two complications: resulting seats will be fractional; and seats of some states may decrease in the exercise. Both are unrealistic.
For converting floats to integers, one can use functions like floor, ceiling or round (nearest integer). Rounding off using these methods is not guaranteed to result in sum of seats being equal to 815 and 35 for states and UTs however. If we use floor for rounding off, we will be left with surplus seats. These surplus seats can be allocated to the states in the order of remainder. This is called ‘Largest Remainder Method’. We define a function for the Largest Remainder Method with the ‘No Decrease’ constraint.
It is never a good idea to trust your calculations without validation. So we throw in some tests here, asserting that total allocated seats are equal to 850; total allocated seats to UTs are equal to 35; percentages sum to 100: and gains and losses net out. Our estimates pass all the tests, validating the analysis.
### Final Diagnostics
Total Current Seats: 543 (Expected: 543)
Total New Seats (Total): 850 (Expected: 850)
Total New Seats (UT): 35 (Expected: 35)
Total New %: 100.00% (Expected: 100.00%)
Total Relative Change: -0.0003 (Expected: 0.0000)