Not good enough, Ekansh, but I like your writing style and I am not complaining about your political perspectives either.
It is the WHERE of politics, you don't say a word about it.
Politics is the influence on the decisions. You do not utter a word about it.
If a single person can dictate, then the WHERE of power is found with that single person. Surrounding that person, there will be a good amount of jockeying going on, but the WHERE of power is then obvious.
In a democracy, the WHERE of power is a table, surrounded by various folks. There may still be a king, queen or president in the picture, with a lot or with a little power, but the WHERE is found in that room with that table.
Access to that room is VITAL. You write nothing about it.
If we take India, then access to the Council of States is indirect, but done proportionally. The downside is the indirectness because it establishes a layer and the primary layer may not pick the secondary layer in the exact same manner.
Overall though, proportional is good because it means that voters get the ones they picked. With 233 seats voted in proportionally, we have 99.6 percent of the voters capable of pointing toward the one they picked (in this case via the selection of someone else doing that picking for them).
House of the People is unfortunately winner-take-all. That means that up to 49.9999 percent of the people could go home empty-handed. This is a format of domination, and corruption often not far behind. The majority dominates, the rest gets nothing. They are not at that table at all. Those that are not at the table are unhappy people, willing to pay for what they want and need. Societies that establish unhappy people are not smart societies. Fortunately for India, the Council is voted in proportionally, so that is a band-aid.
What is not helpful either is that India has three entities, President, Council and House, and as the French said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
So, that is an example of WHERE, but of course it is more about the specifics that are organized around the WHERE. The HOW is crucial.
The largest nation ever to fully operate on Proportional Voting, it being the cleanest format available to us, was Interbellum Germany. This is an important lesson for all of us, because in the 1920s and 30s, the international crisis made German voters flock to communism and fascism, obviously neither group much in love with democracy.
In 1933, the seats were such that one-third went to the communist party, one-third went to the fascist party, and one-third went to a bunch of little parties in the middle.
It was the little parties in the middle that ended up giving Hitler his mandate.
They probably looked at Italy (Mussolini) and at Russia (Stalin) and they liked Mussolini better than Stalin, hoping that Hitler would be a German Mussolini. We know the outcome; they did not at that point in time.
The WHERE is obvious, and the perfect HOW is unfortunately too unstable for large nations such as Germany and India.
I think the Germans got it right, after WW II that is. The current WHERE and HOW are a good fit in Germany today.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/germany/#government or look up wiki.
If you don't like the political setup of India, then there are things you can do. Vote for reform-minded candidates or become a reform-minded candidate yourself. That would be a good start.
Keep it simple, but keep in mind how Germany fared during the Interbellum.
One simplification would, for instance, be to make the Council of States an up-or-down only part of government. Basically, veto or pass of bills. They can then not write anything themselves, just say yes or no. No other powers.
The most important power - writing bills - is then with the House. Still, saying yes or no to a bill is quite powerful.
Personally, I like it best when the House of People is voted in Proportionally. The German system today may approach being the very best, which is people voting in districts with a single winner per district getting a seat. Next, however, all cast votes are reviewed and when the Orange Party got ten percent of the votes but none of the seats, then seats are added so Orange has ten percent of all the seats (none is then directly linked to a district because others got those seats). That way, we have a district-linked representative, and we have all voters represented, no one unhappy.
In Germany, they put a 5 percent threshold in place before a party can get seats via that route, which I consider a real good percentage. So if a party got 4.5 percent of all votes, then they will not get any seats via that route. That party is too small for a large nation such as India. More luck, next election. So, yes, a few unhappy people, but not a large group of unhappy people. If, however, that small party won a district, then they get that district seat of course. The winner always get the seat of the district.
I would not desire a President. Presidents are always winner-take-all, which I truly do not like. It is a fast road toward corruption. I would turn that Presidential position into a paper position. Germany has a president and no one has ever heard of him because he is mainly an administrative president, dealing with political rules and regulations and not with power decisions themselves. Getting a Chancellor (or a prime-minister) is a far smarter outcome. No one elected that head; that head came forth from the body itself without an election, much healthier. The parties that established a coalition most often have the largest party provide the chancellor (but… it can be negotiated to give that position to a smaller party).
Ekansh, it sounds like India needs a remake. Its WHERE seems to be in the right place already, but its HOW is a bit too complex. The more complex, the less things change. But... too clean and too simple, and the system may not be strong enough to contain tensions (and tensions will occur, so the system must be ready for it).
Good luck, my friend.
