The Jewish Chronicle - - Comment&analysis -

One blog­ger is skep­ti­cal about a bill in­tended to change the elec­toral sys­tem in Is­rael: “The idea is that only 60 of 120 MKs would be elected in the pro­por­tional method cur­rently used; the other 60 will be elected one each from 60 re­gions in first-past-the-post elec­tions. In other words, each voter has two bal­lots: one is for vot­ing for a re­gional can­di­date af­fil­i­ated with one of the par­ties and the other is for vot­ing for a party… What could be bad? But you might have sec­ond thoughts if you look at the re­sults of a sim­ple sim­u­la­tion done by my friend Avram D, who com­puted what the dis­tri­bu­tion of Knes­set seats would have been in the 2003 and 2006 elec­tions had the pro­posed new method been used in­stead of the old one. (He as­sumed that ev­ery voter would have sim­ply used both bal­lots to vote for the same party; ex­pe­ri­ence in other coun­tries with sim­i­lar meth­ods sug­gests that this is a plau­si­ble as­sump­tion.) Here is what would have hap­pened (ac­tual re­sults are in paren­the­ses): In 2003, Likud (38) would have got 87 seats. Shinui (15), Shas (11), Na­tional Union (7), Na­tional Re­li­gious Party (6), Meretz (6) all would have been wiped off

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.