Vote Responsibly: Professor Advises Voters to Choose Based on Past Actions, Not Promises
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Professor Elisha Haas advises Israeli voters to choose representatives based on their past actions and character, not on election promises or personal appeal. He argues that the electoral system makes finding a perfect representative impossible, and voters should select the "least unsuitable" list. Haas stresses that a candidate's history of responsible behavior during crises is the most reliable indicator of their future performance, and voting based on other criteria is a risky gamble.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Professor Elisha Haas urges Israeli voters to base choices on past actions, not promises.
- He states that finding a perfect representative is impossible in Israel's electoral system.
- Voters should choose the list that is "least unsuitable" based on priorities.
- A candidate's personality and historical actions are the best predictors of future performance.
- Decisions based on election promises or sympathy are described as risky gambles.
Professor Elisha Haas argues that the Israeli electoral system, with millions of voters and only 120 Knesset members, inherently makes finding a perfect representative impossible. The system, which requires voting for pre-determined party lists, further limits choices. Haas emphasizes that voting should not be based on personal sympathy or rhetoric, but on a candidate's potential for responsible policy-making that will ensure the nation's safety and improve living conditions.
He points to the direct election era of the 1990s, which focused attention on party leaders, as a misdirection, since Israelis elect a group of representatives, not a prime minister directly. The professor suggests that instead of seeking the ideal candidate, voters should choose the list that is "least unsuitable," employing an elimination process based on their own political goals and priorities.
Haas cautions against relying on election promises, citing past instances where pledges were broken, such as the "Nitzan settlement is like Tel Aviv" example. He asserts that the only reliable predictor of a representative's future actions is their personality, which is best understood through their past behavior, especially during difficult situations. He advocates for electing representatives who are guided by shared values, can implement visions practically, and will fight for constituents' needs without succumbing to external pressures or losing composure under criticism.
Drawing a parallel to his experience on a university appointments committee, Haas states that evaluating a candidate's past performance in overcoming research challenges was the most reliable predictor of their future success. Similarly, he believes a candidate's history of actions, particularly their resilience, loyalty to values, and national responsibility during crises, is the most crucial criterion for determining who will best represent voters. He concludes that decisions based on other factors are often gambles leading to disappointment and danger, and that the true competition should be based on a candidate's overall track record.
