An interactive choropleth comparing five formulas for allocating an expanded 850-seat Indian Lok Sabha across states and union territories, showing the resulting change in voting weight per resident on a map of India.
Lok Sabha delimitation explorer
Five formulas. 850 seats. Whose vote gets heavier, whose gets lighter.
Allocation model
Population basis
Map colour by
Change in voting weight by state
Number inside each state = projected seat count under this model. Cooler shades = share of house grows. Warmer = share shrinks. Hover for the full breakdown.
Δ share of house
−30%0+100%
Hover a state
Shape file does not separate Ladakh from J&K (pre-2019 boundaries). Ladakh seats are computed independently and shown in the table.
State seats by region
Solid bar = model allocation. Vertical mark = current count. The arithmetic the southern CMs are worried about lives in the gap between these two.
Share of house by region
Same structure, recast as percentage of the full Lok Sabha (UTs included as a sixth row). This is what the political fight is about — who controls what fraction of the floor.
State and UT breakdown
| Unit | Population | Now | Model | Δ seats | % seats | % share | MPs / Mn now | MPs / Mn model |
|---|
Methodology
- Total seats fixed at 850 (815 from states, 35 from UTs), per the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026.
- All allocations use the largest-remainder (Hare) method, with a floor of one seat per unit.
- The map can colour by share of house (default) or MPs per resident — toggle in controls. Share is the politically meaningful metric: a state can gain seats and still lose voting weight if everyone else gains more.
Models
- Pure population — distribute the 815 state seats by population share; the 35 UT seats by UT population share.
- Status quo (uniform +50%) — each unit's seat count grows proportionally, preserving its current share. The popular reading of "+50% increase" and what most coverage assumes. The Centre's bill is silent on the inter-unit allocation rule, however; Article 81's equal-ratio mandate arguably points to pure population instead. The actual formula will be set by the Delimitation Commission.
- Reddy hybrid — 50/50 split between population and absolute GSDP, per Telangana CM Revanth Reddy.
- Per-capita raw — substitute per-capita GSDP for absolute GSDP in the 50/50 split. Taken literally this gives outsized weight to small wealthy units; included to show what "rewarding productivity" means without a population correction.
- Per-capita weighted — each state's population is multiplied by its per-capita GSDP relative to the national average, then the 50/50 split is applied between raw and weighted population. The more defensible reading of the same intuition.
"Apply to" toggle
- For the three hybrid models, the formula can either redistribute all 815 state seats from scratch, or apply only to the 285 new state seats while leaving current allocations untouched.
- Reddy's stated proposal is the increment-only version; critics often read it as full redistribution. Both produce different winners and losers; both are shown.
Data
- Population — 2011 census (Census of India), and 2026 projection (MoHFW Population Projections for India and States 2011–2036).
- GSDP and per-capita GSDP — 2023-24 current prices, MoSPI via StatisticsTimes.
- Current seats — post-2008 delimitation, accounting for the 2019 J&K reorganisation.
- GSDP for Dadra & Nagar Haveli + Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep are estimated from regional averages (marked *).
- Boundary data — @svg-maps/india (CC0). Pre-2019 J&K boundary; Ladakh territory is included in the J&K shape on the map but treated separately in the table.
Caveats
- Article 81 requires the population-to-seat ratio be "as far as practicable, the same for all States" — a constraint pure population satisfies and the other models bend.
- Constituency-level boundary drawing within each state is a separate exercise, not modelled here.
- The 850 cap is the bill's headline number; the bill itself does not specify the inter-unit allocation rule. That silence is the contest these models attempt to make legible.
- States and UTs are allocated from separate pools (815 and 35), as the bill dictates. Article 81's equal-ratio mandate applies only to the state pool — UT seats are set by ordinary law. One consequence: Delhi, with 2.2 crore people, gets ~18 seats in the UT pool under pure population; Haryana, with 3.1 crore, also gets ~18 in the state pool. A Delhi resident ends up with ~50% more representation per head than a Haryanvi. This is a real feature of the constitutional architecture, not a quirk of the models.