Some of those who voted YES had this to say:
• Yes... We need two MPs to be precise... One representing the eastern Nagas and the other representing the rest.. I believe that would help a lot in uplifting the eastern area.. And though we are one, demographically there is a vast difference between the two parts and as such we should be having atleast 2.
• Yes, why should states with fewer population have fewer members of Parliament. This is ridiculous. If we were to go on the basis of population, it will take another 50 years for Nagaland to get an additional MP to the Lok Sabha and the Naga issues will never reach the corridors of power in Delhi.
• I believe such an idea would be a great recipe for addressing an acute travesty of equality and justice prevailing in the flawed and messy state of affairs in my beloved Indian state of Nagaland.
• Yes... 2 Member in Lower House (LS)
• Yes, it will be very good because at least there will be someone who can give company to our lone MP who is ‘very concerned’ about our people but cannot raise our issues in the parliament. It has always been a pity to see our one and only MP sitting at the back witnessing unruly Indian parliamentary proceedings. At the same time having more MPs will only widen the gap of the already divided Nagas.
• Yes. The more the mp at least an additional voice
• If Nagaland is to get more MP and it does deserve more MPs, than the Indian government must think outside the box, rather than only looking at the Constitution for solutions for every problem. By now, am sure the thinkers in India must have realized that the system of allocating number of representatives is not promoting democracy, but only suppressing it.
• Yes, at least two.
• Yes, yes and yes. It is so hilarious to see how the entire state of Nagaland is fighting over one Lok Sabha seat. This is a mockery. It becomes even more comical because that one MP has no voice in the Lok Sabha. The Nagaland MP will go virtually unnoticed in Delhi. No wonder our states continues to remain attention hungry from Delhi.
Some of those who voted NO had this to say:
• While some may argue that having only one MP in the Lok Sabha we cannot voice our opinion in Delhi. But my friend, you know very well that our politicians contest election to become rich. If I am wrong, how come our politicians are the richest in our society? For these reasons, I strong oppose the idea of Nagaland to have more MPs. Instead of talking about more MPs, we should think of how to reduce the size of our MLAs. I think we need only one MLAs from one district. This will bring more development and justice in our state. Take my words my friend, Less politicians means More development and vice versa.
• No, because it is According to population.
• it is better to have none then to have 10 corrupted ones.
• One parliament is enough for this great nation..
• No ..... we dont even seen or heard a single question raised nor developmental activities...what is the point of increasing the seats of MP "Mamuli Person".
• No.. no.. no.. its dangerous. the more seat, the more divided, corrupted, tribalistic we will be. An elected representatives irrespective of which constituency he is from is supposed to look after the welfare of the entire state, but in our state, this MLA/MP will only look after his people and clans first.. and on top of that , we dont have a statesmen..who is an skilled orator that can speak for the naga cause in the parliament. so instead of asking for more seats, lets first produce some statesmen with integrity and commitment... he will be equivalent to a thousand useless politicians in the parliament.
• Sixty MLAs at home and one MP is enough to make Nagaland better.
Some of those who voted OTHERS had this to say:
• I guess the right description to it is.. MP seats are allotted according to the number of population and area.. and hence Nagaland falls short in it.
• India's systems of representation to the Parliament is not fair. This means states like Arunachal, Manipur, Sikkim, Mizoram and Nagaland will always be under-represented because the criteria is based on population. While states like Uttar Pradesh will continue to rule India. This is hardly democracy.
• It should not be based on population. Just look at Arunachal Pradesh, it is one of the bigger states in India but its has so few representatives in the parliament, whereas a state like UP which is smaller than Arunachal has more MPs because it has more population. So I feel it cannot be based on population alone, but geography must also be taken into view.
• Yes... We need two MPs to be precise... One representing the eastern Nagas and the other representing the rest.. I believe that would help a lot in uplifting the eastern area.. And though we are one, demographically there is a vast difference between the two parts and as such we should be having atleast 2.
• Yes, why should states with fewer population have fewer members of Parliament. This is ridiculous. If we were to go on the basis of population, it will take another 50 years for Nagaland to get an additional MP to the Lok Sabha and the Naga issues will never reach the corridors of power in Delhi.
• I believe such an idea would be a great recipe for addressing an acute travesty of equality and justice prevailing in the flawed and messy state of affairs in my beloved Indian state of Nagaland.
• Yes... 2 Member in Lower House (LS)
• Yes, it will be very good because at least there will be someone who can give company to our lone MP who is ‘very concerned’ about our people but cannot raise our issues in the parliament. It has always been a pity to see our one and only MP sitting at the back witnessing unruly Indian parliamentary proceedings. At the same time having more MPs will only widen the gap of the already divided Nagas.
• Yes. The more the mp at least an additional voice
• If Nagaland is to get more MP and it does deserve more MPs, than the Indian government must think outside the box, rather than only looking at the Constitution for solutions for every problem. By now, am sure the thinkers in India must have realized that the system of allocating number of representatives is not promoting democracy, but only suppressing it.
• Yes, at least two.
• Yes, yes and yes. It is so hilarious to see how the entire state of Nagaland is fighting over one Lok Sabha seat. This is a mockery. It becomes even more comical because that one MP has no voice in the Lok Sabha. The Nagaland MP will go virtually unnoticed in Delhi. No wonder our states continues to remain attention hungry from Delhi.
Some of those who voted NO had this to say:
• While some may argue that having only one MP in the Lok Sabha we cannot voice our opinion in Delhi. But my friend, you know very well that our politicians contest election to become rich. If I am wrong, how come our politicians are the richest in our society? For these reasons, I strong oppose the idea of Nagaland to have more MPs. Instead of talking about more MPs, we should think of how to reduce the size of our MLAs. I think we need only one MLAs from one district. This will bring more development and justice in our state. Take my words my friend, Less politicians means More development and vice versa.
• No, because it is According to population.
• it is better to have none then to have 10 corrupted ones.
• One parliament is enough for this great nation..
• No ..... we dont even seen or heard a single question raised nor developmental activities...what is the point of increasing the seats of MP "Mamuli Person".
• No.. no.. no.. its dangerous. the more seat, the more divided, corrupted, tribalistic we will be. An elected representatives irrespective of which constituency he is from is supposed to look after the welfare of the entire state, but in our state, this MLA/MP will only look after his people and clans first.. and on top of that , we dont have a statesmen..who is an skilled orator that can speak for the naga cause in the parliament. so instead of asking for more seats, lets first produce some statesmen with integrity and commitment... he will be equivalent to a thousand useless politicians in the parliament.
• Sixty MLAs at home and one MP is enough to make Nagaland better.
Some of those who voted OTHERS had this to say:
• I guess the right description to it is.. MP seats are allotted according to the number of population and area.. and hence Nagaland falls short in it.
• India's systems of representation to the Parliament is not fair. This means states like Arunachal, Manipur, Sikkim, Mizoram and Nagaland will always be under-represented because the criteria is based on population. While states like Uttar Pradesh will continue to rule India. This is hardly democracy.
• It should not be based on population. Just look at Arunachal Pradesh, it is one of the bigger states in India but its has so few representatives in the parliament, whereas a state like UP which is smaller than Arunachal has more MPs because it has more population. So I feel it cannot be based on population alone, but geography must also be taken into view.
