For a long time I've been struggling to understand why we persist with the Proportional Representation (PR) system here in Israel, despite its obvious weakness, in that it rewards small splinter parties, giving them disproportionate power in determining the composition of the government coalition. It seems totally obvious that having directly elected district representatives, like in the USA and UK, would lead not only to more stable governments, but also to more responsibility on the individual MK to serve the public who elected them faithfully.
I first came to the conclusion that it was simple political cynicism: the people who would have to vote to change to directly elected MKs are the same MKs currently protected by the obscurity of party lists, so they are not held accountable for anything, and they can continue their ride on the gravy train without having to lift a finger.
But it still doesn't add up. Even high performing politicians, and even the larger parties are still shifting and dodging and pushing direct elections off the agenda. These are the people who stand to gain the most from direct elections! There has to be some other reason...
And then I realized... it's actually quite obvious when you think about it, but it can't really be said out loud, as you will see. I am going to say it out loud anyway. The Powers That Be have plausible deniability, so I can say all the things they're likely thinking but can't say for themselves, and they will deny that this is their reasoning, even though it is.
Under the system of PR, MKs are elected according to the number of votes cast, more or less proportionately, though not exactly, because of certain kinks in the formula such as the minimum threshold and vote-sharing agreements.
If, however, we had to switch to district representatives, you would have to draw up districts. While those districts could not practically all have the exact same number of registered voters in each, there would at least have to be approximately the same size. Did you see the catch? Registered voters, not votes cast.
Do you see the problem now? I'll spell it out: the difference is in the Arab sector. In today's Knesset, there are 11 representatives of Arab parties, including Chadash, which is actually more communist than Arab, but as part of the anti-Zionist bloc they depend heavily on Arab votes. That's less than 10% of the Knesset. In reality, Arabs make up roughly 20% of Israel's population - but since they typically have very low voter turnout, they are also very under-represented in the Knesset. If, however, we had to draw up voting districts according to registered voters, without some significant gerrymandering, the Arab districts would make up closer to 20% of the Knesset. That's enough to make any pro-Zionist think twice about switching to district representation.
And yet, I'm still in favor of making the change. If you really do believe in democracy, then trust in the system. There are a large number of benefits that would come about through directly elected representatives.
Firstly, having district representatives who are directly answerable to the people who elected them means they will have to work to better the lives of their constituents - including the Arab ones. So if the MK for Umm-el-Fahm spends his tenure ranting about the evils of the Zionists and going on missions to Iran and Turkey to whip up more hatred - and doesn't do basic stuff like making sure that Umm-el-Fahm gets enough municipal budget to maintain the roads, build parks etc., then next time around his voters will kick him out. I can even imagine Shas putting up candidates in the Arab towns, because they have a strong reputation for fighting for the lower classes. Wouldn't that be funny?
Secondly, I'm not afraid of having more Arab MKs. Right now, the Arab bloc is problematic, because their strident anti-Zionism precludes them from joining any coalition, which makes government building more difficult. With directly elected MKs, though, the chances of even needing a coalition are very slim. Immediately, all the single-issue parties like Tzippi Livni, Kadima, Otzma Leyisrael, Green Leaf etc. would be wiped out. Parties like UTJ, whose support is very concentrated in specific areas, would only be able to win seats (albeit by huge margins) in their own strongholds, but overall, their strength would take a hit. And the big winners would be the big parties, the ones who have a serious track record of governance. It's quite likely that a single party - probably the Likud - would elect enough MKs to make the government all by itself.
Now, wouldn't that be a good thing?
What do you think?
I first came to the conclusion that it was simple political cynicism: the people who would have to vote to change to directly elected MKs are the same MKs currently protected by the obscurity of party lists, so they are not held accountable for anything, and they can continue their ride on the gravy train without having to lift a finger.
And then I realized... it's actually quite obvious when you think about it, but it can't really be said out loud, as you will see. I am going to say it out loud anyway. The Powers That Be have plausible deniability, so I can say all the things they're likely thinking but can't say for themselves, and they will deny that this is their reasoning, even though it is.
Under the system of PR, MKs are elected according to the number of votes cast, more or less proportionately, though not exactly, because of certain kinks in the formula such as the minimum threshold and vote-sharing agreements.
If, however, we had to switch to district representatives, you would have to draw up districts. While those districts could not practically all have the exact same number of registered voters in each, there would at least have to be approximately the same size. Did you see the catch? Registered voters, not votes cast.
Do you see the problem now? I'll spell it out: the difference is in the Arab sector. In today's Knesset, there are 11 representatives of Arab parties, including Chadash, which is actually more communist than Arab, but as part of the anti-Zionist bloc they depend heavily on Arab votes. That's less than 10% of the Knesset. In reality, Arabs make up roughly 20% of Israel's population - but since they typically have very low voter turnout, they are also very under-represented in the Knesset. If, however, we had to draw up voting districts according to registered voters, without some significant gerrymandering, the Arab districts would make up closer to 20% of the Knesset. That's enough to make any pro-Zionist think twice about switching to district representation.
And yet, I'm still in favor of making the change. If you really do believe in democracy, then trust in the system. There are a large number of benefits that would come about through directly elected representatives.
Firstly, having district representatives who are directly answerable to the people who elected them means they will have to work to better the lives of their constituents - including the Arab ones. So if the MK for Umm-el-Fahm spends his tenure ranting about the evils of the Zionists and going on missions to Iran and Turkey to whip up more hatred - and doesn't do basic stuff like making sure that Umm-el-Fahm gets enough municipal budget to maintain the roads, build parks etc., then next time around his voters will kick him out. I can even imagine Shas putting up candidates in the Arab towns, because they have a strong reputation for fighting for the lower classes. Wouldn't that be funny?
Secondly, I'm not afraid of having more Arab MKs. Right now, the Arab bloc is problematic, because their strident anti-Zionism precludes them from joining any coalition, which makes government building more difficult. With directly elected MKs, though, the chances of even needing a coalition are very slim. Immediately, all the single-issue parties like Tzippi Livni, Kadima, Otzma Leyisrael, Green Leaf etc. would be wiped out. Parties like UTJ, whose support is very concentrated in specific areas, would only be able to win seats (albeit by huge margins) in their own strongholds, but overall, their strength would take a hit. And the big winners would be the big parties, the ones who have a serious track record of governance. It's quite likely that a single party - probably the Likud - would elect enough MKs to make the government all by itself.
Now, wouldn't that be a good thing?
What do you think?
11 comments:
Definitely food for thought!
Doesn't the MK from district 123X also have to come from there? How would that work?
I came here from lifeinisrael.
Shaking up the system would not be a good thing, but perhaps we could adopt what I understand is the system in Germany which is half direct and half proportional.
Your theory of Arab political responsibility is interesting. Many Arabs vote left-wing Labour, not necessarily to Arab parties because the Arabs do not think they do anything for them. (heard from Arabs). The small parties would certainly not go away, and evidence is in other countries where there are independents and small parties in the parliament. As for Likud taking all, look at stable Canada: It used to have 2.5 large parties, but now has four, one of which wants to suceede from the rest of the country.
Miriam: no reason why the MK has to live in his own district. It gives him more credibility in the campaign, but it certainly doesn't have to be mandatory.
Josh: you say shaking up the system would not be a good thing. Can you please explain in more detail why you feel that way?
I agree that there are still small parties in the UK, and the Monster Raving Loony party has even won a handful of municipal by-elections on account of a strong protest vote. But by and large, the rule is that people vote for the district candidate mostly along party lines, which means that unless you're in a deep sectoral pocket (e.g. Mea Shearim, Bat Ayin), or there's a strong independent candidate with a big budget and lot of local support, the first past the post will be a mainstream, large party candidate. If an independent/small party candidate is good enough to win, then chances are he deserves it and will be a good representative.
Ultimately that's what I'm aiming for - the sum of the best possible representatives, individually chosen by district, will give you the best possible government - and also the best possible Opposition, which is almost as important as a good government.
I really want to have a system where politicians can be held accountable for their actions. However, there are some challenges that I have not heard good solutions to.
1. How do we decide how to divide the country fairly into 120 districts? These decisions tend to be politically motivated as you can effect the outcome of an election on how the boundaries are divided up.
2. More importantly what formula do we use to adjust boundaries to account for population growth and shift? How will this influence decisions for building projects in the future?
In Canada it takes approximately 36% - 40% of the popular vote to form a majority Government. As long as we continue to be as fragmented as we are, I don't see one party taking control in the near future. However, Canadian Minority Governments have broken away from the coalition model. Instead they govern, gaining support from an opposition party on an issue by issue basis. That may not be such a bad idea here.
ehwhy: the job of district delineation is indeed complex, but it's been done before, notably in the USA, UK, Canada, South Africa. Of course there are always charges of gerrymandering, but if you have an oversight committee involving people from across the political spectrum, you can at least come close to something fair.
As for population shift, well shift happens. In the USA they regularly redraw district lines to account for this, and the electoral college also changes from election to election based on population shift.
You can have it both ways.
divide the country up into 12 geographic locations, not based on population at all.
Let each geographic region send 10 mks to the knesset based on proportional voting of that geographic region.
you get accountablity, larger parties (10% of the region by definition) and you don't have to worry about gerrymandering or any of those other corruptions of direct elections.
Anon: I don't think that would help very much. The whole idea of the party list inherently obfuscates the line of responsibility between the MK and the voter. If you're voting for a party, there's no one individual that you can pin the blame on for lack of performance.
If you have a directly elected MK, however, then even if you didn't vote for him, he's still your MK, and as a constituent, you can demand performance from him.
Be cynical and simple: even without creating a British riding system you could simplify the government by raising the percentage threshhold to enter the government to 5%. No major party will vote for it simply because it will result in a majority government and they might not be the party in the majority!
Garnel: Not only is that cynical; it just doesn't make sense. Even if Labor could only increase their representation from 15 to 20 seats by sticking it to the smaller parties, they'd do it, even though they would still be in the minority.
Post a Comment