Britannia Radio

Multi-District Elections: Facts and Fictions (2002)

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Many Israelis, including academics, believe that such is the smallness of this country, both in population and area, that multi-district or constituency elections are inappropriate. They are wedded to the existing parliamentary system whereby the entire country constitutes a single electoral district in which parties compete and win Knesset seats on the basis of Proportional Representation (PR). This, they believe, enables distinct groups, be they ideological, ethnic, religious, or otherwise to be represented by distinct parties in the Knesset regardless of whether the individuals composing these groups are dispersed throughout the country. They contend, moreover, that representation of geographical districts leads to disproportionate representation of diverse groups as well as gerrymandering. Let us distinguish facts from fictions.

First, it is not irrelevant to mention the fact that of 76 countries having democratic elections for their lower (or only) branch of the legislature, 74 have multi-district elections, and many of these countries, we shall see, are smaller than Israel. If we ignore the Netherlands, a homogeneous constitutional monarchy, it may then be said that Israel is the only reputed democracy in which legislators are not individually accountable to the voters in constituency elections. In other words, in Israel alone, an incumbent politician does not have to defend his voting record against a rival candidate. If the incumbent violated his previous campaign pledges, he need not worry about being publicly exposed by a rival for his Knesset seat.

Second, contrary to its advocates, proportional representation of distinct groups in a single national district election does not ensure a party’s fidelity to its campaign pledges. In the 1992 election campaign, the Labor Party’s platform rejected recognition of, or negotiation with, the PLO, as well as withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Once ensconced in office, however, Labor betrayed the voters. So did the Shas Party, which declared, in that 1992 campaign, that it would not join a Labor-Meretz coalition. Much the same may be said of the Likud in 1996. When Prime Minister Netanyahu declared on CNN that no one ever expected him to accept the Oslo Accords as a basis for the “peace process,” or meet with Yasir Arafat, or withdraw from Hebron, he unwittingly admitted that he had betrayed the expectations of those who voted both for him and the Likud Party. So much for the blessings of PR in the absence of multi-district elections.

The fact that 74 democracies somehow manage to conduct the public’s business by means of multi-district elections should dispel the fiction that Israel cannot function well or justly without its existing parliamentary electoral system, where fixed party lists compete in a single country-wide election. The truth is that 54 years of this “system” has engendered the shoddiest politics, culminating in the 1999 elections when 29 Knesset Members hopped over to rival parties in order to obtain safe seats. Israel’s political “system” smells to high heaven, and only the ignorant along with self-serving politicians want to preserve it!

Hardly anyone seems to recognize the fact that a heterogeneous country such as Israel, where the entire country constitutes a single electoral district, is doomed to political ineptitude and anarchy precisely because its political parties will be more or less linked to (yet often betray) distinct ideological, ethnic, or religious groups. The Government or Cabinet formed as a consequence of Israel’s parliamentary electoral system will seldom be capable of pursuing rational and coherent national policies.

For example, Israel has a variety of competing school systems: the state system, the state-religious system, the Tami school system, the “independent” Haredi system, the Ma’ayan (Shas) system, etc. Each of these systems is linked to a particular political party or social movement. This politicization of the schools has pernicious consequences. As one commentator has noted, the Education Ministry’s allocations are based on political power rather than educational criteria. Moreover, when one political group succeeds in obtaining a larger slice of the education budget for its constituents, other groups bitterly complain that this has come at the expense of their children. The politicized nature of the schools thus breeds inter-communal hatred and rivalry.

Overlooked, however, is the fact that Israel’s parliamentary electoral system contributes to this malignant state of affairs. Suppose Israel had regional elections. The country would then be divided into several geographical electoral districts. Let us assume that most of these districts will be heterogeneous. Those elected in such districts will then have to represent a variety of opinions and interests rather than a single-issue group. This will put an end to single-issue national parties and their narrow-minded politicians.

Israeli politicians are often faulted for their lack of national vision. Hardly anyone sees the connection between this parochialism and Israel’s parliamentary electoral system―and this, quite apart from the narrow-mindedness produced by Israel’s 1.5% electoral threshold. That 74 democracies shun this electoral “system” is no accident. In this case, Israel would do well to imitate the “goyim”!

If it be said that regional elections will transform politicians into agents for local interests, this is only partly true, and the part that’s true should be welcomed, for the concerns of small communities in Israel receive little attention by the government.

A profusion of electoral systems exist. The simplest is the single-member district with plurality rule (SMDP). The candidate receiving the most votes in the district wins. Opponents say SMDP disenfranchises minorities. This is rhetoric. First of all, the individuals composing “minorities” not only vote, but they also have the opportunity to lobby their district’s representative. Second, experience in the US indicates that minorities are not ignored by congressmen, especially in closely contested districts.

It can also be argued (as previously suggested) that SMDP requires elected official to represent diverse opinions and interests, which can enlarge their intellectual horizons. Even if it is true that SMDP disproportionately represents diverse groups, it is also true that PR with a low electoral threshold multiplies small parties, paralyzes governments, such that minorities themselves suffer as a consequence. And it should be emphasized that Israel’s system of fixed party lists enables parties to ignore their voters with impunity.

In any event, SMDP is employed in no less than 22 countries, including Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Of these 22 countries, the 16 have smaller populations than Israel: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Jamaica,Mocronesia, New Zealand, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Samoa, Trinidad & Tobago, and Zambia. I have capitalized those countries whose geographical area is smaller than Israel. Incidentally, the 50 American states employ SMDP, and their populations range from 490,907 (Wyoming) to 33,666,550 (California).

Of course, single-member districts with plurality rule is not the last word. Some 54 countries employ other methods of representing constituents. Districts may have more than one representative, as in Australia; they may have run-off elections to obtain a majority candidate, as in France; and they may combine SMDP for part of the legislature and PR for the remainder, as in Germany.

Of the 54 countries just alluded to, 12 have smaller populations than Israel: CAPE VERDI, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Honduras, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, and Uruguay. Again, the geographical area of the countries here capitalized is smaller than Israel.

We see, therefore, that 28 countries have smaller populations than Israel, and of these, 18 are smaller in area. This should dispose of objections to multi-district elections on the basis of a country’s population or size. I might also add that many countries are as heterogeneous as Israel.

Of the many regional electoral systems which Israel might adopt for its betterment, two may be mentioned here: the Preferential Vote system used in Australia and Ireland, and Personalized PR used in Germany and Denmark (which systems avoid gerrymandering). For further details, see my book Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Falls.

Finally, no less than David Ben-Gurion opposed the existiing parliamentary electoral system on the gounds that it fragments Israel and undermines its national interests! □