Why no equality of states in presidential election?

Walt_Disney

UP' s value of 1 mla is 208, total of up's mla is 83k
Sikkim's value of 1 vote is 7, total is 224.

It is true that population is more in mainland so no of mla is also more bit it also means that some populated states altogether are more imp and play crucial role in game of numbers in presidential election. Does this mean that president belongs to UP more than sikkim?

Do you think that some new formula be there which will keep total value of each state equal?

sss_2503

Suppose the country decides today to give equal power to each state than tomorrow therr will another thread asking- UP has more people than sikkim still there total vote power is same i.e per capita vote power of sikkim is more than up so does that mean president is more of sikkim than UP.
Same is true for representation in Rajya sabha. Its an age old debate the pros and cons of which we must prepare from exam pov (this you can find on internet or any book easily)

tiger101

@Walt_Disney Representation based on numbers has been oldest accepted principle.One man one vote captures the same logic
In case of larger states the value is more because the person is representing more number of people.
Value of an MP 's vote is 700+ .. again because representing many more than even MLA of a state like UP
The kind of equality of votes you are suggesting would depart from principle of one man one vote.. and I dont see much rationale for that happening in case of the president
There is a strong case for bringing this equality in the rajya sabha.Along the US model of 2 seats to each state irrespective of population since Rajya sabha is a specifically federal institution.Thus punchhi comm has recc this reform.
I may be mistaken here.do get back if there's any problem in the argument.

Walt_Disney

Thanks for replying friends.
But don't you think less populated states should have some advantage.
2ndly, Using 1971 census and restriction on delimitation has not resulted in population control or even acknowledgement by political leaders to reduce population on a mission mode.


So on the contrary, it is a gross injustice to populated statez, because since 1971 population has more than doubled, and our constitution gives power to an individual or citizen and not to any state.

Rs being actual federal organ so certainly will have more representation from populated areas, but in case of president parity among statez can be there.