How will the 2026 delimitation affect India as a whole keeping the new count of 888 seats in mind (not the current 543)? I’m looking for genuine answers with facts and not rhetoric. I will only listen to answers and not reply to any of them.

Note: Calculation of population per seat is done by dividing the projected population of the country for 2026 by the total number of current elected seats in Lok Sabha, 1,425,908,000/543 =2,625,982 (rounded off). The last column of the table is my deduction in anticipation of the probable new numbers of MP state-wise.

We never got any explanation from the ruling party about how will the 2026 delimitation benefit India as a whole. Let us examine some holistic pictures. Following is the distribution of Lok Sabha seats as per the 1971 census. It was a fairly equitable distribution of the Lok Sabha seats.

Sources: India’s Delimitation Dilemma: Challenges and Consequences ” Election Commission of India; ”’ Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections (2020); National Commission on Population, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Hi everybody! I have been looking at posts on narcs and narc abuse on here and if has really helped me out a lot. I am currently struggling with my situation and need some advice/support. I met a narc last year, everything seemed to good to be true. Love bombing, always texting calling and taking me on dates. Everything changed when someone warned me about him out in public in front of him and who he is. This caused a conflict with us and the love bombing seized. he would tell me that everything is okay and i can come and talk. He would set a time limit on me and kick me out after that. he would then text me like everything was fine and we hung out again and after that he completely ghosted me for one week. He came back and texted me a week later laughing about the ghosting and acting like nothing had happened. he continued to text me ( not like in the beginning) make plans with me, then on the day of the plans he would just ghost me. One day he would act interested the next silence. i contacted him a month later and he acted like nothing happened. He was on a vacation and sent me a picture of another woman ( someone he allegedly met on the trip) to strike a reaction but i never gave him one. After the trip he came to my place and was extremely rude, accusing me of going on dates with a bunch of men. The next day he accused me of being an alcoholic and that he wanted nothing to do with me but said well maybe we can be "friends" then ghosted me i assumed at this point it was over and i would never hear from him again. He contacted me on the holiday a month later acting like everything was great. We ended up hanging out a month or so later and when we hung out it went well, i thought things were going in the right direction. after we hung out.. silence. I would try to text him and if he replied it would be very short then he just stopped replying. He ghosted me for almost three months. I thought he was done this time and of course he popped up again like nothing happened. At this point i was getting sick of if so i questioned him as to why he dissapeared and always does this. Of course he had some sob story about a injury and family member dying of cancer. I felt pity for him and he gave me an apology.. so i took him back stupidly. things seemed to be going smooth for a couple months, of course until his family member died and his injury got better he never contacted me and was distant. Menawhile, i was there for him during the difficult time for him. He lied to me about the funeral and never wanted to chat. I was chasing him and he would always claim nothing was wrong but when i said i thought he used me when he was down he could not handle it and would always tell me he didnt care and to go away. I would get so upset i would try texting him to work it out he would barelt respond and if he did he would not be nice about it. we did hang out a couple times after that, he would ignore me after. One day i was like hey i think you are seeing someone else, and i was like well ixam seeing someone so no problem if you are he said " buy bye good luck with your new guy stop contacting me" i was devastated and tried to get into contact with him for weeks then i just gave up and accepted it was over. He ended up contacting me a month later acting like everything was fine. He wanted to go out and have drinks i told him i would. He and i both seemed to have a great time. He ends up ignoring me again. I kept texting him trying to figure out what was wrong. He kept saying everything was fine and i said ok can we hang out again? He said maybe i was like why? He just kept saying maybe … our last conversation we had… i said what is wrong ? He said nothing is wrong everything is fine. I asked him why he keeps saying maybe. He said " maybe but i dont want to see you right now" i said why? He saix " im just not feeling it, if i wanted to date i would" i said why did you contact me less then a week ago wanting to go out? He said i didnt.. even though he did. So i said should i just move on or what? He said whatever you want to do. So i said that he was really confusing me and asked him if he had anything more to say before i move on? My messages were turning green so i panicked he blocked me and reacted irrationally. I said " omg did you block me? My messages are not going through. Even texted him on my work phone asking what was up. And called him twice ( please dont judge me i know it is pathetic i never was this type of girl before him) so he replied and said " Ok I'll block you now" then immedietly blocked me. He has never blocked me before since I have met him he will just ghost. Is this ths final discard aka " grand finale? Did i just push him too far? this has upset me so much its hard to even function.

Modi Ji feeling something can not be answer to my question. Sometime back he felt that the board exams should be removed but last year he felt that they should be brought back. Before becoming PM, he felt GST & Aadhar were against the interest of the nation. But after becoming PM his perception of GST and Aadhar got changed. Before becoming PM, he felt petrol, diesel, and gas prices should be brought down. But after becoming PM his perception of fuel prices got changed. The same with the US Dollar price. Before becoming PM, he argued that India should cut off relations with China. But after becoming PM he visited China maximum time and met Xi Jingpin the maximum number of times by any world leader. He became most friendly with Xi.

So my question remains why do we need 888 MPs in the Lok Sabha? The nation needs to be taken in confidence about its benefit. Ease of government can not be a reason. MPs are lawmakers. Governance is done by the system and the administration. MPs do not run governance. Will increasing the number of lawmakers help in better law-making? We already have a constitution with hundreds of amendments taking place over the last 75 years. As such most MPs are half-educated. If you increase the number the quality of the MPs with further reduce not improve considering we are now getting the best of the best cream 543 MPs if they are the example of the best. Imagine we are going to have around 65% additional MPs from the current batch of leftovers who couldn’t win or be accommodated.

The population parameter shouldn’t be the only consideration for the expansion of the number of LS MP. There has also been a suggestion for shifting the focus to the Upper House: the Rajya Sabha. That let the distribution of Lok Sabha seats across states be according to their proportional share to the national population but restructure the Rajya Sabha in such a way that it compensates for the loss of representation in the Lok Sabha. This even though looks fair, there is an inherent anomaly - the southern states will practically have no say in government formation and resulting policy-making. Possibly BJP has been working on this design to maintain its hold on power, that is to render South ineffective in the overall election result.

Why am I sweating so much when I try to do anything?

In his personal life also he is same. He felt he should get married. But later felt that married life and maintaining family life are bad. But he is so much in love with Elong Musk’s kids. Then he gets cozy with the Italian PM.

The failure of the cow belt states for their mismanagement, gross negligence, and failure to control population growth is one thing, and rewarding them with more MP is another thing. On a progressive note, the number of MPs from these states should actually be reduced as a punitive action so that we get a much more effective population control regime there. But instead, if we reward them with almost doubling their MP seats it will send a very wrong signal of injustice to the southern states. Plus it will weaken the federal structure of India. Just imagine a state like Bihar will have 82 MPs, Tamil Nadu will have 49 MPs, Rajasthan will have 52 MPs and Madhya Pradesh will have 56 MPs. It will create a huge regional imbalance if the number of MP seats is to be distributed based on population growth. This will tilt the regional balance of power further towards the north

If we go by the same population-wise distribution of Lok Sabha MP seats the probable distribution of MP seats in 2026 may look as follows. This is keeping the number of MP seats unchanged as that of 543

How can MeTV Toons compete with other national broadcast TV networks?

I am not sure how many people understand the probable impact of delimitation. The impact could be multifarious. Since the Modi governmnet is bringing it there must be some party-specific political intentions behind it, which is always the larger point of interest. The Modi governmnet has been specifically interested in the expansion of MP numbers so he hurriedly got the new Parliament constructed. I do not trust this person. His only priority has been winning elections. Secondly, he is utterly incompetent in making correct assessments for sound logical inferences in the interest of the nation.

Typically entire South India will lose out on their number of MP seats because of better population control. You can not reward the cow belt states for their mismanagement, gross negligence, and failure to control population growth. The governments of these states have grossly failed. The states like Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, UP, Gujarat, and Haryana will get a further upper hand to dominate Indian politics. This will be catastrophic. The quality of policymaking is not dependent on the size of the population. The illiterate and half-educated people may keep on increasing their population but are you going to reward them by increasing their representation? The above analysis is based on 543 MPs. If you increase the number of MPs to 888, the population proportional share will remain the same.

Before becoming PM, he felt that every year 2 crore jobs should be created but after becoming PM he started cutting jobs. Before becoming PM he claimed that he had concrete information about black money in the Swiss banks. But after becoming PM he said that he doesn’t have any information. Before becoming PM he alleged that the UPA government made 1.76 lakh crores 2G scam. But in the next 10 years, his government couldn’t prove any scam ever taking place. But there is no explanation why the former CAG Vinod Rai was given two Padma Awards despite his failure to establish that the alleged scam ever took place or the exchequer lost any money. His government felt that there was a 70000 crore irrigation scam in Maharashtra involving Ajit Pawar. But these days he doesn’t feel so. His government made a huge uproar of 45 Crores Liquor scam in Delhi. But in four years no evidence could be put on the table. In contrast, the US government issued an indictment against Adani for paying 2200 crores in bribes. But Modi Ji doesn’t believe that. He feels it's a personal issue of Adani.

Has your wife made you a cuckold?

However, the question remains why do we need 888 MPs in the Lok Sabha? How many people are clear about its need? How would it help India as a nation? If we ask the Bhakts, possibly he will answer that the population has grown so much since 1951 so we need more numbers of MP. From the netizen, I have seen only this kind of argument in favour of increasing numbers. I have not seen any qualitative analysis from any quarter. Some people said that the earlier parliament was getting old and had limited sitting capacity so the new parliament had to be constructed. I don’t think that the iconic old parliament building getting old was an issue with anybody. Somebody wanted to construct a new parliament building with an increased number sitting capacity was the primary reason that we have a new parliament building. However, even then my question remains why do we need 888 MPs in the Lok Sabha?

I do not think administratively or governancewise there will be any qualitative change with 888 MPs. But it is definitely going to change the political equation. Our democracy will be hijacked by some illiterate and half-literate religiously blinded cow belt MPs.

So my point is what Modi Ji feels keeps changing with time. His judgments kept changing and were not correct or comprehensible. Mostly he has been wrong in making correct assessments. The problem is that unlike bringing back the board exams certain things can not be undone. The huge negative impact of demonization can not be undone. This nation mostly had well-educated PMs. For the first time, we have a half-educated PM. But the risk is that an otherwise failed guy in every sphere of life wants to make fundamental changes in the constitution. His only qualification is that he has won more elections.

What are your thoughts on RM's new album "Right Place, Wrong Person"?

BJP has not been able to penetrate the South in an effective manner. So possibly it is looking for an alternative solution by going for fresh delimitation and taking the number of LS MP to 888. Our PM may not have passed Class X but electoral politics mathematics are very strong. If we go by the last table Bihar (82) will have more MP than Maharashtra (80). West Bengal (62) will have far less than Bihar (82). Whereas currently, Maharashtra has 48, Bengal 42, and Bihar 40 MP. Please read the table carefully only those states will gain more MPs where the BJP is reasonably more comfortable. Secondly, the new delimitation process will also involve increasing the number of legislation assembly members - the MLAs, also in the same proportion of around 64%. Which will increase the number of RS MPs in the same proportion. That means the Hindi belt state will have a bigger representation in the Rajya Sabha giving BJP majority in the RS. So BJP is planning to have the majority in both LS & RS

Some people may argue our population has increased, so what? The nation could manage with 534 MPs some 50–60 years ago with poor communication mode and practically no telecommunication. With today's superior infrastructure for commuting, mobile, internet, TV, and social media, I do not see any handicap factor for lawmakers to reach out to the public. The second most important argument against the increased number of MPs is that the parliament sessions have a limitation of time for discussion. Whether you increase the number of MPs or not the productive discussion time will be the same. This will seriously cut down the time allotted to the opposition MPs and the effective speakers asking important questions. Quantity and Quality are always inversely proportional.