Israeli Writers Debate the Meaning and Responsibility of a Single Vote
Translated & summarized from Makor Rishon by baba
Israeli writers Ariel Shenbal, Gideon Doukov, and Shlomo Piotrkovsky are questioning the traditional democratic notion that every single vote is decisive. Shenbal plans to vote for a party unlikely to pass the threshold, while Doukov suggests a "half-blind vote" to reduce personal responsibility. Piotrkovsky believes individual votes likely change nothing. The author argues against this evasion of responsibility, emphasizing that every vote matters, even when the choice is difficult.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Israeli writers question the decisive impact of individual votes in elections.
- Ariel Shenbal will vote for a party unlikely to pass the electoral threshold.
- Gideon Doukov proposes a "half-blind vote" to lessen voter responsibility.
- Shlomo Piotrkovsky suggests individual votes likely have no real impact.
- The author criticizes this trend as an evasion of democratic responsibility.
- The difficulty in choosing parties like Religious Zionism is cited as a factor.
Several Israeli writers are questioning the traditional democratic emphasis on the significance of every single vote, arguing that individual choices may not hold the decisive weight often proclaimed. Ariel Shenbal, writing in Makor Rishon, announced his decision to vote for the "Haredi Public" party, even if it doesn't pass the electoral threshold, suggesting that such a vote can still effect change. He also alluded to the possibility of future elections, implying that the current vote might not be as critical.
Gideon Doukov, also in Makor Rishon, proposed a "half-blind vote," not suggesting throwing away a vote but diminishing its importance by stating that no decision hinges on a single ballot. He described an "emotional difficulty" in choosing between parties close to one's worldview, leading to a reluctance to fully commit and bear responsibility for the outcome.
Shlomo Piotrkovsky echoed this sentiment on Facebook, suggesting that an individual's vote behind the curtain likely changes nothing. The common thread among these writers is a reduced emphasis on personal choice and accountability for election results, whether regarding the overall importance of voting or the specific party chosen.
The author suggests that this evasion stems from a genuine difficulty many feel, particularly concerning the Religious Zionism party. Voters may find it hard to endorse the party due to its association with issues like the conscription of Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) into the military, which overshadows other achievements. This difficulty, the author posits, is not just about choosing between options but about standing behind a choice, explaining it, and accepting criticism.
The article critiques these approaches, comparing Doukov's method to children covering their eyes and believing they are unseen. It argues that avoiding responsibility for one's vote, even if the choice is uncomfortable, does not absolve the voter of accountability for the results. The author concludes that while it's permissible to vote differently, evading responsibility is not a solution, and every vote matters, especially when encouraging others to participate.
Mentioned
