How Israel's Electoral System Translates Votes to Knesset Seats
Translated & summarized from Globes by baba
Israel's electoral system uses the "highest averages" method to allocate Knesset seats, a change from the "highest remainder" system implemented in 1973 to favor larger parties. Surplus vote agreements allow parties to combine their votes, increasing their chances of gaining extra seats. The process involves calculating a mandate measure, distributing initial seats, and then using the D'Hondt method for remaining seats. A High Court petition against the system's perceived inequality was dismissed.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Israel's electoral system uses the "highest averages" method to allocate Knesset seats, favoring larger parties.
- The "highest averages" system replaced the "highest remainder" method in 1973, championed by MKs Bader and Ofer.
- Surplus vote agreements allow parties to pool their votes, enhancing their chances of securing additional seats.
- The electoral threshold in Israel is currently set at 3.25% of the vote.
- The D'Hondt method is used to distribute remaining Knesset seats after initial allocations.
- A High Court petition challenging the system's fairness was dismissed prior to the "constitutional revolution."
With less than two weeks until Israelis head to the polls, the significance of surplus vote agreements in determining Knesset seat allocation is paramount. These agreements, alongside the electoral system itself, play a crucial role in translating votes into parliamentary representation.
The current method, known as the "highest averages" system, was introduced in 1973, replacing the "highest remainder" method. This change was spearheaded by Knesset Members Yochanan Bader of Gahal and Avraham Ofer of the Alignment. The new law, an amendment to the Election Law, aimed to favor larger parties over smaller ones, which the previous system had incentivized. Ofer argued that the "highest averages" system more accurately reflected the voters' will, citing an imbalance where one list paid significantly more votes per mandate than another in the 1969 elections. He also contended that the old system encouraged fragmentation and penalized party consolidation, which was counterproductive to stable democracy.
Opponents of the change argued it violated the principle of equal vote value, giving more weight to votes cast for larger parties. The debate culminated in a High Court of Justice petition, filed by a mathematician who calculated that the new system indeed benefited larger parties. However, the petition was dismissed, as the court at the time did not consider itself empowered to strike down laws and found no procedural flaws.
The process of allocating Knesset seats begins after votes are cast and counted. Parties must surpass the 3.25% electoral threshold. Votes for parties that pass this threshold are summed and divided by 120 to determine a "mandate measure." Each party's vote count is then divided by this measure to get an initial seat allocation. Any remaining seats are distributed using the D'Hondt method, where a party's vote count is divided by its current number of seats plus one. The party with the highest resulting average receives the next seat, a process repeated until all 120 seats are allocated. Surplus vote agreements allow two parties to be treated as a single entity, increasing their chances of receiving additional seats through this method.
If, after the initial allocation, a single seat remains undistributed, the D'Hondt formula is applied again to determine its recipient. Surplus vote agreements are particularly effective when two parties combine their votes, as this combined total is then used in the D'Hondt calculations for distributing any remaining seats.
