One of the provisions in the Israeli coalition agreement refers to political reform plans:
1. The threshold is to be doubled from 2% to 4%.
2. The number of Knesset members needed to dismiss a government will be increased from 61 to 70 (of 120).
I would not count a system of government under that second provision as “parliamentary”; I am not sure what it is, or if there is anything comparable anywhere else.
(As for thresholds, we have discussed the theme extensively before.)
Propagation: Seeds & scions (10)
Fruits and Votes grafted The possible impact of a higher threshold in Israel
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBacks
To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=6816
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)
Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.
About the comment form
Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.
Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!
The soil is ready for planting:
`
I saw a proposal somewhere (I think by one of the campaigns for changing the system) that called for a supermajority to dissolve the Knesset rather than one for removing the government – a much better idea with far more precedents.
I hope that the fact that a supermajority-non-confidence provision in basic law will not need a supermajority to be repealed will keep the change relatively short in duration.
Seed planted by JD — 15 March 2013 @ 22:21
I note the proposal does not require a supermajority to form a government, just to hold one to account.
Seed planted by Alan — 15 March 2013 @ 23:39
That’s great that the electoral threshold is going to be increased to 4%. This is long overdue, but how is this going to impact Israeli Arab representation as the Arab parties are below the threshold, so will there only be 8 parties represented if the 2013 election had the 4% electoral threshold rule. Would the two Arab parties, and one Arab/Jewish party merged into one?
It seems to me having a special majority to dissolve the Knesset is silly. If a government is a lame duck government; the government has to last the full time because nobody not even the opposition wants a snap election.
What would the distribution of seats have been if this election had a 4% threshold? Sweden has a 4% threshold and currently right now, there is 8 parties represented in the Riksdag. What is the maximum numbers of parties that can be represented with a 4% threshold?
Has anyone ever suggested a two-round list system of proportional representation? Where in the first round, all the parties that get pass the 4% threshold as an example participate in the 2nd round, and parties below the threshold don’t in the 2nd round? Would this eliminate the problems sometimes with PR with low thresholds that a lot of votes are wasted giving the larger parties huge seat bonuses?
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 16 March 2013 @ 00:44
A 4% threshold would mean any party with seats in a 120 seat chamber would have a minimum of five seats. That would allow for 24 five seat parties if my math is correct. I honestly can’t see Israel or anyone ever being that fractured.
I don’t know the exact proposal at hand, but there is a reasonable number of countries that allow parties representing ethnic or religious minorities to win seats in parliament with lesser or even no thresholds being applied to them. It is not inconceivable that Israel might adopt the same thing.
Seed planted by Mark R — 16 March 2013 @ 06:34
25 parties can each get exactly 4%.
Honestly I don’t think it’s going to have that big of an impact. Kadima is pretty much dead as an independent movement at this point, and unless Tzipi Livni has some peacemaking magic in her, I would think HaTnua is as well. Recent polling suggests its highly unlikely she gets over 4% at the next election.
As far as the “Arab parties,” it’s hard to judge. Their ideological differences are severe–Ra’am is Islamist, Balad is liberal Arab nationalist and anti-Zionist, while Hadash is more “non-Zionist” in their rhetoric and believes in Arab-Jewish partnership, while also being Communist. The three current blocs allying, or at least consolidating into two, is possible. Ta’al was allied with Hadash in the 2003 elections, and have been allied with Ra’am since; Hadash was in coalition with Balad in 1996. Balad has the softest support, and I think if the threshold made it look unlikely they’d get in, their supporters could move over to Ra’am and Hadash and push them both over the threshold. It’s also quite possible they all try to go it alone in the next elections, and that at least one of them fails to cross the threshold.
It’s also possible that Arabs gravitate towards the left-wing Zionist parties. Meretz would seem the most likely on a policy basis, but its outreach outside of the educated Ashkenazi middle class has been pathetic; Labor would have the biggest potential in terms of resources, but becoming a party with lots of Arabs could drive the “I want peace and am not really racist but don’t generally associate with Arabs” part of them towards Lapid. The most recent polling has indicated that they’ve been hemorrhaging support to Lapid as is.
A two round system would likely eliminate that issue, but you’d face the problem of not having everyone come back to vote, and the issue of a party falling dramatically in support between rounds. A preferential ballot would eliminate this issue.
Seed planted by Chris — 16 March 2013 @ 06:52
Just being picky, but 4% of 120 is 4.8. Unless Israel has started giving away fractional seats, a 4% threshold is a five seat minimum. Although I suppose if 25 parties all get exactly 4% of the vote, a few parties will end up drawing the short straw and only take four seats.
Seed planted by Mark R — 16 March 2013 @ 07:54
As for waiving the threshold for parties representing groups that might be excluded by the 4% threshold, such as Arab citizens of the state, then what about also waiting it for Ethiopian or Indian Jews, for example?
I think this is a question Israeli reformers would be advised not to open.
Seed planted by MSS — 17 March 2013 @ 11:43
The possible impact of a higher threshold in Israel
In a working paper (of which I will become co-author), Taagepera has developed a logical model that suggests the number of parties (of any size) should be about the inverse square root of the threshold…
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 17 March 2013 @ 11:49
The idea of a super-majority to dissolve parliament (mentioned by JD at #1) has been discussed in Israel for some time.
In fact, coincidentally, it was being debated in the UK in May, 2010, at almost precisely the moment that I travelled from that country to Israel and joined a political-reform committee of academics and others that was discussing this idea there.
So, naturally, there is a F&V thread devoted to the topic. (Also, see a follow-up on the UK.)
Seed planted by MSS — 17 March 2013 @ 12:00
http://www.timesofisrael.com/yisrael-beytenus-governance-bill-a-dictatorial-law/
I hope this article is right, as even a non-confidence motion needing a majority to pass while also requiring them all to sign to reach the floor is preferable to one which requires a supermajority to pass.
Seed planted by JD — 03 May 2013 @ 11:18