Israeli Election Poll Reveals Large Share of Soft Voters Within Political Camps

A recent survey conducted by the Masrek-Ravdim Institute for Channel 7's Israel Election Barometer examined not only voter preferences but also the firmness of these choices ahead of the upcoming elections in about two months. Unlike typical polls that ask who respondents would vote for if elections were held today, this survey asked participants to identify all parties they realistically consider voting for, assuming all pass the electoral threshold, and then rank them by preference. This method distinguishes between hard-core supporters and softer voters who keep multiple options open.

The poll surveyed 930 Jewish Israeli respondents, representing the population with weighted adjustments as needed. Findings show that about half of voters consider at least three parties as realistic options, with the average voter weighing 2.6 parties. While 93.7% have a clear preferred party, around 6.3% remain undecided. This indicates a broad layer of soft voters across the political map, not just a small fringe.

Importantly, voter fluidity tends to remain within political camps rather than crossing them. Among right-wing voters (including Likud, Otzma Yehudit, Religious Zionism, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and smaller right-wing parties), 86.3% consider only right-wing parties as options. About 7.2% also consider left-wing parties or the Trooper party. Left-wing voters show slightly more openness, with 76% staying within left-wing or Trooper parties, and 17.9% also considering centrist parties, but only 6.1% entertain right-wing options.

The survey also highlights differences in voter firmness among parties. United Torah Judaism has the most solid core, with 57% of its supporters naming no alternative parties. The Democratic Camp and Likud also show relatively stable bases, while Otzma Yehudit and parties like Bennett's, Yesh Atid, and Lieberman’s have softer electorates with many supporters considering multiple options. Within Religious Zionism, a divide exists between hardline religious voters, who are more committed, and others who remain more flexible.

Smaller parties like those led by Trooper, Winter, and Arden have particularly soft support, with voters averaging over three or four parties considered. This suggests that while some parties rely on a firm core, others lead mainly due to temporary advantages amid a broad range of alternatives. The next article in the series will analyze which parties compete for the same voters and what this reveals about real electoral battles within camps.