'Closed lists' in Israeli party politics stifle progress
MAURICE OSTROFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jan. 2, 2006
While the urgent need for electoral reform is now widely accepted, it would be constructive
to give some thought to the problems which need fixing before we start figuring out solutions.
Closed Lists - Interviewed on English Radio on December 4, Colette Avital spoke of a "hit list"
being prepared by her party bosses which would deny her an equal chance of being selected by voters, thus highlighting the
fundamental problem of closed lists. They deprive the ordinary voter of an opportunity to influence which individuals will
represent their chosen party in the Knesset.
In the closed-lists system, the party decides not only on the candidates, but also on their
relative positions, so that those positioned higher stand a better chance of obtaining a Knesset seat. The number of seats
allocated to each party is proportional to the number of votes attained, so if for example a party gains 20 seats, the first
20 candidates on that party's list will become MKs.
Worse than closed lists in which all party members may vote (as in the Labor Party) are lists
prepared by a small Central Committee, as in the Likud. Last comes the Kadima Party, in which the list is prepared by one
man.
Most seriously, because of the voters' inability to express disapproval of persons who may be
associated with corruption or scandal, closed lists may permit criminal elements to seep into government.
This is not a theoretical consideration. During the last election campaign there were widespread
allegations of attempts to bribe politicians, of corruption and vote selling. Losing candidates complained that a party's
Central Committee members had offered batches of votes for a price. There were reports that known criminals had been active
in membership drives and in elections to the Central Committee. Elsewhere, there were allegations were made of union funds
being used, and of falsified signatures of new party members.
The reality cannot be avoided: Israel has been infected by the world's increasing corruption,
be it in the UN, the EU, or the French, Italian and German governments. In fact, recent polls show that a majority of Israelis
think corruption is even more dangerous than terrorism, and it is encouraging to know that our new comptroller, Micha Lindenstrauss,
is giving this issue priority. He told a recent press conference: "Corruption within government must be wiped out."
Electoral reform is essential if this is to be achieved.
Open Lists - While proportional representation is the choice of most European countries, many
also give their voters a say in the choice of candidates by using "open lists." In addition to voting for a party, voters
choose among candidates proposed by the party.
This not only gives the voters some influence over the candidates and the order in which they
are to be elected, it gives the candidates a serious interest in winning the support of ordinary voters - an interest sadly
lacking in the closed-lists system. While the number of seats assigned to each party are still a reflection of popular support,
the order of priority of the candidates is decided in some systems by the voters, in others by a combination of the voters
and the party.
In Finland, voters are presented with random lists of candidates chosen by the parties, and
instead of voting directly for a party they vote for an individual, this vote being attributed to the candidate's party as
well as to the candidate.
Why not constituencies? - The call for electoral reform is not new. An important lesson should
be learned from the half-baked introduction of direct elections for prime minister (repealed in 2001). Since the 1950s, various
proposals have been made, including suggestions that Israel be divided into constituencies, in each of which several Knesset
Members will be elected, with the remaining members elected according to the existing system. Every voter would vote for a
candidate and a list.
The call for such geographical constituencies is frequently made by olim from Britain
and the US, where elected candidates take a particular interest in their constituencies. While much can be said in favor of
this system, it has many drawbacks, and it is important to realize that movements exist in both the US and Britain which are
advocating a change to PR.
Due to the manner in which voting districts are created, this system, also known as "Winner
Takes All" or "First Past the Post," frequently produces undemocratic results. For example, in the last general election in
Britain, the Labor Party was returned with a majority of 66 members, even though it received only 35.2% of the vote. Similarly,
in the 1978 and 1981 elections in New Zealand, the Labor opposition actually secured more votes than National, but the latter
won more seats.
In 1993, faced with problems similar to ours regarding the breakdown of public trust, New Zealanders
voted to change their system from "First Past The Post" to the German-style Mixed Member Proportional representation, in which
each voter has two votes, one for an MP and one for a party.
The good news is that President Moshe Katsav has appointed a national commission to recommend
changes in the structure of government and elections in Israel. Let us hope this body presents preliminary findings without
delay, so we can question candidates before the coming election to determine who among them will support the commission's
recommendations if and when they are elected.
The writer is an industrial engineer and business consultant.
Open lists... Sir, - Thank you for "'Closed lists' in Israeli politics stifle
progress" (January 3). Maurice Ostroff has given a much-needed, reader-friendly explanation of some of the problems of our
present electoral system and clearly exposed the iniquities of the closed lists which Israel continues to employ, contrary
to trends in other democracies.
Is it too late for a grassroots movement to demand that open lists be introduced in time for
the forthcoming election? Even though the parties will have prepared their lists by now, there is still time to ensure that
at the polling booth voters be given an opportunity to choose the order of preference of the party's candidates.
REGINALD BROWN Tel Aviv
Sir, - Maurice Ostroff was right on the button. Everyone is saying that this election is about
choosing the least corrupt party, and that we need to change the voting system so political candidates have to prove their
worthiness of our vote and be accountable to the electorate once they are voted into the Knesset.
Open lists are an essential element of a democratic electoral system. The people will support
those who are sincere about ending corruption and publicly promise to push for electoral reform. Party candidates be warned.
We are watching closely!
CANDY SHINAAR Citizens for Responsible and Representative Government Kfar Vitkin
...aren't so democratic Sir, - Maurice Ostroff correctly states that Israel's
closed list system has been disastrous for electing representatives. However, he misrepresents constituency (direct representation)
systems and neglects serious flaws of the open lists system.
Some direct representation systems do produce winners with absolute majorities. Both runoff
votes and the instant runoff vote (IRV) system at work in Australia facilitate an absolute majority for the winner of constituency
elections. Yes, there are some marginal groups in the US and UK advocating a move to proportional representation (PR). There
are movements in PR countries in addition to Israel that advocate direct representation. Even in New Zealand there are calls
to revert back to direct representation because of PR's lack of efficiency in forming a government.
In the open list system most of the electoral power of that vote is channeled toward the party,
not an individual candidate. If a candidate does not acquire enough votes for a high position on the party list his votes
are still used by the party in its total to support its other candidates. What if voters support that individual candidate
but not the entire platform of that party? What if voters don't care as much for those higher up on that party's list? In
both situations the voters' interests are subordinated to the party's. In fact, the open list system provides voters with
absolutely no way of predicting whom their votes will end up supporting going into the election.
This is more democratic?
MICHAEL JAFFE Direct Representation for Israel Zichron Ya'acov
A new system Sir, - At this time of political chaos one ever more frequently
finds letters in your column from readers searching for an orderly system of direct representation of electors similar to
that which they were used to in their countries of origin.
The following organizations are seeking to achieve just that, albeit at varying speeds:
• The Citizens Empowerment Center in Israel (www.ceci.org.il/eng/about_visions.asp) ceci@ceci.org.il Call
(03) 643-8979; fax: (03)643-9438
• Direct Representational Democracy for Israel (www. directrepisrael.org/EN/About.html)
info@directrepisrael.org
• Israel Democracy Institute (www.idi.org.il) Call (02) 530-0849; fax (02) 530-0870.
I suggest that in order to hasten matters along your readers should contact these organizations
and give them maximum support.
Letter from Maurice Ostroff published in Haaretz January 20. 2006
Change to an Open-List System
Letter
from Maurice Ostroff published in Haaretz January 20. 2006
In his sharply
analytical article "Three rivals are off and running" (Haaretz Jan. 15),Uzi
Benziman described how last Thursday's party primaries highlighted the rickety state of our political system. He warned that
"the political developments of the past several days illustrated the collapse of the party system in Israel".
Benziman
pinpointed the root of the problem in his conclusion that "If the main parties would only deign to speak to the public openly,
the real choices would be laid out before the electorate".However, it should
be plain for all to see, that for so long as Israel adheres to the Closed Party List system,which deprives the citizen at the polling booth of any influence in the choice of candidates who represent a party
in the Knesset, MKs will continue to have no incentive to speak to the public as recommended by Benziman. Instead, their allegiance
must inevitably be directed towards either a small central committee or, as in the case of Kadima, the one person who decides
on the candidates who will represent the party and their order of preference.
May
we hope that among the many personalities of integrity in the reconstituted parties, some will heed Benziman's warning about
the collapse of the party system and insist, at the very least, that before the forthcoming election "Open Lists" are introduced.
This will enable the citizen voter to have someinfluence onthe choice of candidate who will represent the party in the Knesset and give candidates and MKS a correspondingincentive to communicate with and win the confidence of the electorate.
While
it is commonly accepted that other changes in our electoral system are necessary, introduction of "Open Lists" can be swiftly
and beneficially effected without delay and it is up to us, as concerned citizens, to insist on undertakings from all candidates
who seek our votes, to effect this elementary but beneficial change,
HAARETZ
January 20, 2006
Maurice Ostroff
Change to an Open-List System
In his sharply
analytical article "Three rivals are off and running" (Haaretz Jan. 15), Uzi Benziman described how last Thursday's
party primaries highlighted the rickety state of our political system. He warned that "the political
developments of the past several days illustrated the collapse of the party system in Israel".
Benziman pinpointed
the root of the problem in his conclusion that "If the main parties would only deign to speak to the public openly, the
real choices would be laid out before the electorate". However, it should be plain for all to see, that for so long
as Israel adheres to the Closed Party List system, which deprives the citizen at the polling booth of any influence
in the choice of candidates who represent a party in the Knesset, MKs will continue to have no incentive to speak to the public
as recommended by Benziman. Instead, their allegiance must inevitably be directed towards either a small central committee
or, as in the case of Kadima, the one person who decides on the candidates who will represent the party and their order of
preference.
May we hope that among the many personalities of integrity in the reconstituted parties, some will heed
Benziman's warning about the collapse of the party system and insist, at the very least, that before the forthcoming election
"Open Lists" are introduced. This will enable the citizen voter to have some influence on the choice of candidate
who will represent the party in the Knesset and give candidates and MKS a corresponding incentive to communicate with
and win the confidence of the electorate.
While it is commonly accepted that other changes in our electoral system
are necessary, introduction of "Open Lists" can be swiftly and beneficially effected without delay and it is up to us, as
concerned citizens, to insist on undertakings from all candidates who seek our votes, to effect this elementary but beneficial
change,
