Israel and proportional representation:

Some people say that they don’t want proportional representation because of the example of Israel:

We need to ask each of these individual people two questions:
1. What particular aspect of Israel’s situation is undesirable to you in particular?
2. Is that particular aspect caused by the electoral system? -- Or by something else?


For example, here are two aspects that likely have a more distant cause-and-effect relationship with the electoral system within Israel:
1. The history and premises of the formation of the state of Israel and the volatility that can create
2. Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian territories and the volatility that can create

Here are two other examples of aspects that should be examined as to whether or not they have a closer cause-and-effect relationship with the electoral system: 

1. The perceived instability of politics within Israel
2. The perceived control by small parties within Israel

Only after a discussion isolates the particular aspect of Israel’s situation that is undesirable to certain individual people, only then we can begin to examine whether or not that particular aspect has a cause-and-effect relationship with the electoral system and/or with any one of the particular features of Israel’s particular electoral system. 

Voter Equality (Relative Voter Parity) as a Fundamental Mathematical Principle of Equality and Fairness in a Democracy:

Proportional representation is a principle; it is not an electoral system itself.

It is the principle of a government representing voters in proportion to their vote.

In that respect, proportional representation is more fair than disproportional representation. That’s a mathematics-centered assessment of whether or not voters get represented equally and fairly.

This means that if there is any unfairness in Israel’s particular situation that is not caused by, or partially caused by, its electoral system, then that unfairness would be added to, compounded, and made worse if the electoral system were based on disproportional representation instead of proportional representation. If proportional representation was removed from Israel’s situation then there is a high probability that many of its particular problems would be worsened, not improved.

Obviously proportional representation is not the only ingredient needed to make things more fair. But it is definitely one of the necessary ingredients.

When an electoral system is designed using the principle of proportional representation that is one of the necessary ingredients of a truly representative democracy -- that is truly representative of it voters.

It’s like the ingredient of water in soup: You can’t have soup without it.

But if there are rocks in the soup you’ll still crack your teeth even if it has water.

There are several challenges facing Israel. With each one of these individual challenges, we have to ask ourselves, “Does that particular challenge have any relation to the electoral system?” “Is this particular challenge a function of the electoral system, or is it not a function of the electoral system?” To describe what it means for one thing to “be a function of” another thing, consider this analogy: Ringing a bicycle bell will not make the bicycle move forward. Therefore a bicycle’s movement is not a function of ringing the bell. In other words, a bicycle’s movement is has “no relation to” ringing the bell.

Other examples of improving election fairness that are not related to the electoral system would include:
1. enacting better rules on election spending,
2. political donations,
3. Media that is not dominated by too few voices: This facilitates informed voting.

Also there are other things apart from elections to foster fairness in between elections: For example: Improve rules on lobbying, transparency, diversity in media, media that is not beholden to their wealthy advertisers, etc.

 
Evidence, probabilities and correlations to Proportional Representation:

Internationally, there is much more evidence to support proportional representation (PR) than not.

Most nations with PR do better than Canada in several areas: environment, income inequality, etc. See link 

The evidence may not show that every single nation does better in these areas.

But in terms of overall, collective evidence and probability mathematics, the exceptions are less likely to occur. Unfortunately, cherry picking Israel focuses on one of those exceptions.

It’s counter to the logic of probability mathematics to cherry pick and selectively single out Israel as an example of what can go wrong with a country that chooses PR.

Again, we ask, “Are Israel’s problems caused by its electoral system or by something else?”

Once that is determined then we can begin to examine each particular design feature of Israel’s electoral system to see if it could be re-engineered and tweaked to reduce a particular ongoing problem.

For example, it could be the fact that their electoral party threshold has been relatively low for many years, or it could be that its closed list feature does not allow the voter to have enough power; or it could be a combination of those two and/or other features.

 
Israel’s Electoral Party Threshold is below average

From the perspective of global averages, Israel’s electoral party threshold has been relatively low for too many years, and is still below average even after they raised it several times.

The electoral threshold for a party to be allocated a Knesset seat was only 1% until 1988 (40 yrs); it was then raised to 1.5% and remained at that level until 2003 (15 yrs), when it was again raised to 2% (11 yrs). On 11 March 2014, the Knesset approved a new law to raise the threshold to 3.25% (approximately 4 seats).

Date	Time period	Israel’s Electoral Threshold (Most PR countries use 5%)
1948 – 1988	40 yrs	1%
1988 – 2003	15 yrs	1.5%
2003 – 2014	11 yrs	2%
2014 to present		3.25%

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Israel#History

Here are some of the thresholds used by other countries as of June 2024 (incomplete list of countries which use proportional representation). Notice that 19 countries have threshold at or below Israel’s; whereas 24 countries have a threshold above Israel’s.

Threshold (%)	0+	1+	2+	3+ Israel	4+	5+	6+	7+	8
Number of countries	8	-	3	8	7	14	1	1	1

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation  

Israel has a closed list electoral system:

This puts the power of choosing candidates more into the hands of the party than of the voter.

Israel has a party-list electoral system:

Multiple candidates are elected through their position on an electoral list. Geographically and electorally speaking, Israel is organized as all one electoral district. That is unconstitutional in Canada which has provinces and local ridings.

See sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

https://www.fairvote.ca/22/01/2020/what-about-israel/

  
Conclusion: 

When we separate, distinguish, and differentiate, the different cause-and-effect relationships, we can recognize which cause is related to which effect in Israel’s unique situation. 

Footnote:

Dennis Pilon has looked at two particular aspects of Israel’s electoral system. See link 

In terms of the perceived instability, he found that Israel is just as stable as Canada.

In terms of the perceived influence of small parties, he found that “dominant parties supplied the Prime Minister and all senior ministers while small parties were not able to exact much by way of concessions or cabinet posts.”