The system only covers proportional representation and gives no direct representation to a citizen. Unless you are a paid member of a political party, and have connections with an MK from that party, no one will listen to you.

Every citizen should have representation and should have access to their MK.

MKs, for the most part come from the major cities, but need to be a more eclectic and diverse group of people, who are more in touch with the needs and wants of all citizens.

There is little incentive for Mks to respond to citizens and almost no access to Mks.

Therefore it is pretty difficult and frustrating for citizens to lobby or affect change.

The Mks do not answer to citizens but rather only to their own political party.

It is a good system for countries with relatively small populations. It worked for us in 1948, when there were only 500,000 voters. But it doesn’t work now, with a population of 10,000,000 and over 6,000,000 voters. Citizens have no one to speak to and the Mks have no responsibility to the nation, only to their inner circle and parties.

Democratic countries such as:

Italy, New Zealand, Japan, France, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

Considering electoral reform: USA, UK, Canada

It is the right thing for the citizens of the country.

They will be remembered as the Knesset who did great things for the citizens to whom they are responsible.

They will show that they care about the country and the citizens and not just their seat, pension and party.

No more multiple elections in a year. Likelihood of full terms.

It would be much clearer what each party stood for, since all coalitions and negotiations would have to be completed in advance, not after the elections, with the Mks scrambling for power.

Parties would have to provide clear platforms, so citizens could make informed choices and vote for whom they want and not for what they don’t want.

It would change the stranglehold that the various political parties have on the public at large.  It would reduce the current and recurring situation of a ‘Kingmaker’; a smaller party head who represents a small percentage of our citizens yet, holds the whole Knesset for ransom in order to get what he wants.

Some of the Mks would be proportional and can live anywhere in the country but at least half would be directly elected by their constituencies, meaning that they are citizens of that riding.  Not someone who moved there to get a seat, but an actual citizen of the place they represent (5 years minimum), their children would be in school there and they would represent their own community.  Someone who lives in the Negev should represent the citizens of the Negev, not someone living in Ramat Gan.

Change will ensure that there is a much fairer vote, that the elected government is a reflection of what the country wants and will allow that elected government to move forward for the benefit of the country.

1.  Reduce distortions and strengthen the links between voter intention and the electoral result.
2.  Encourage greater participation in the democratic process, including inclusion of under represented groups.
3.   Set a target for all eligible voters and encourage them to exercise their civic duty; avoid undue complexity in the voting process.
4.   Safeguard the integrity of our voting process.
5.   Ensure accountability of local representation.

The Mks and the parties, certainly not the citizens.

Referendum – promoted by the public, the most likely way to motivate the Knesset.

Knesset vote – the Mks themselves could call for a vote, which would be quicker and the best scenario but is unlikely as it would likely lead to some parties losing their seats and power, even if it is best for the country.

Ironically, as a Political Party – if we could run as a party with electoral reform as our platform, and get enough votes, we could affect a very quick change.

MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) – is one of the most popular systems of those that have changed.  This combines both the directly elected MKs (constituencies) and proportional representation (overall percentage/list) systems.   90 seats are direct vote and 30 seats are proportional, to make a balanced 120 seats, but allow for citizens to be directly represented.

DMP (Dual Member Proportional) – Similar to MMP but there would be 60 constituencies and each riding would have two representatives. 60X2=120 seats

RCV (Ranked Choice Voting or Single Transferable Vote) – Allows for no vote to be lost.  You rank the candidates and it ensures that if not your first choice, then it’s your second or third that will be taken into account.  This is a much fairer system, as the winner is the first person to get a majority of the vote and not the most votes overall.  This is used in each riding, you don’t cast a single vote but rather number the candidates from 1- to the number of candidates.

When the counting is done, if a candidate reached at least 51% of the vote they are elected.  If not, then the ballots of the candidate with the least amount of votes is removed and their votes are transferred to the number two on each ballot.  If a candidate reached 51% of the vote, then they are elected and if not, the candidate with the next lowest number of votes, ballots are transferred to their number two (or three) and so until one of the candidates crosses the 51% threshold.

SM (Supplementary Member) – Similar to RCV, but you must mark two options, a first and second.  Initially only the first choice option is looked at and if someone has a majority, then they are elected.  If not, then only the two candidates with the largest number of votes go forward to the next round and only then do the second choice part of the ballots come into play.  Both the disregarded candidates ballots and the candidates still in the running second choice ballots are now counted. 

No. During the 1990s, Israel tried direct elections from Prime Minister, however, they tried to mix the American direct elections for President/Prime Minister, with the British representation system. It was doomed to fail!

What we are proposing is tweaking the existing system to provide a combined direct & proportional representation that would reduce the number of parties, give citizens access to their personal representative, and ensure that the MKs and parties realize that they work for their constituents and the citizens. If the citizens of a “riding” are not happy with their Mks performance, they will vote them out, without reference to the party. It allows for more accountability.

Many of the democracies that were once British Colonies, have a FPTP (First Past The Post) or WTA (Winner Take All).  This is a purely directed representative system and even the UK realizes it is flawed and is considering changing the system.

In this system, the person with the most votes in each constituency wins, even if the majority of constituents didn’t vote for them. 

Ours is called the D’Hondt system, which is purely proportional system and does allow for any particular citizen to have direct representation.  

Both system have major problems and most countries using one or the other are now looking to change to a fairer system that combines both, direct and proportional.

An eclectic commission would be set up specifically to define the constituencies according to both demographics and geography.

This means that Gush Dan may have a number of constituencies because of dense population, but so would the Negev because they have large geographical space.  Both things need to be taken into account.