Proportional Representation in Israel and Everywhere Else: It Doesn't Work Because It Can't Work

A completely proportional representative democracy is an oxymoron and most countries utilizing it prove as much

The Israeli Electoral System: NOT Exactly a Success System

Popular vote be-damned, the electoral college in the USA spurs particularly strong feelings. The thought that a state-based algorithm (more-or-less) values place hood over person-hood just rubs people the wrong way because pluralities, and occasionally, even minorities, can seize victory through strategic voting as opposed to holistic support. Of course, this is a legitimate concern, but it is not an inherently American frustration. For as much as my British and Canadian friends love to mock the States’ Electoral Politics, both of those English-Speaking countries also rely on questionable majoritarian systems.

This winner-take-all model, known as First Past the Post (FPTP), is a near constant in most democracies. The rules differ but the irony does not: Under the mantra of winner-take-all, pluralities and minorities can occasionally, if not frequently, cobble together partial or full government power. In Britain, most elections results with one party winning a majority or near thereof seats. BUT the last government to win a governing AND a voting majority was in 1931 (!!) The system is different and its constituents have adapted strategically, but does that make it permissible? The same applies to our friends to the north, with a minority Liberal government in power the last two elections despite Conservatives winning larger vote shares. Again, different systems and different constituent expectations, but even the Liberals themselves were on the cusp of passing voting reforms before they realized the current system benefited their pluralistic voting outcomes. History will repeat itself quite soon: Although the Trump Effect has legitimately weakened the Canadian Conservatives, don't be surprised if they get more of the vote but still lose in seat count to Mark Carney's revamped Liberals.

Former Canadian Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole: Most Votes But No Cigar

What gives? This is (again) the difficulty of place based-politics. If one candidate wins across multiple constituencies with different margins, then it can skew an overall majority. This happens often for the House of Representatives, with strongly urban electorates pumping out massive majorities for the Democrats while competitive districts favor Republicans just enough to give them the majority of seats (this has become less common recently and, considering changing voter identification, could soon have the opposite effect). Some of this has been chalked to gerrymandering, which certainly has a flavor of truth in several democracies (try Malaysia, where districts can be gerrymander and malapportioned population-wise). But even with fairer lines, nothing can overcome the contours of a place-based political system. After all, not every person thinks the same, and the only way to account for their every thought, would be to have their every vote. And direct democracies are simply impossible in today's modern, massive world.

Differences in Majority Votes and Majority Seats. Wisconsin is a traditionally LOUD case of gerrymandering, but its concentration of Democratic Voters in Urban areas also explains its mismatch of vote share to seats.

Direct Democracy aside, Proportional Representation (PR), some election experts argue, is the next best thing. If 47% of the population want the Democrats, then they should receive 47% of the seats, seat boundaries be damned. Proportional Representation Systems strive to do exactly that, with the likes of Israel, Albania, Argentina, Colombia, Austria, Belgium and hybrid systems in Germany and Greece. The general intention is to prioritize representation of ideology over representation of place. Parliamentarian members are assigned different constituencies to represent but nonetheless reflect a national vote share rather than a FPTP systems demanding winner-take-all and strategic voting. Ideally, it should prevent polarization, allowing for more niche parties with nuance interested to merge and build cohesive coalitions that promote unity as opposed to divisive elections that shut the losers completely out of power.

Proportional Representation in Israel: It's Even Worse Than It Looks

 It sounds great. But so do most fantasies. The reality is that a democratic system based upon proportional representatives relative to its constituents is impossible. After all, if 10,000 people vote for Party  A, 9,000 for Party B, and 2 for Party C, the numerical breakdown to equalize these results is too difficult for any representative body to embody.

Most Proportional Representation Systems know this, which is why they have a so-called threshold, where a certain amount of votes must be cast for a party in order to qualify for any representation at all. Alas, throwing out minor party votes creates the same loser shutouts as in FPTP!

The examples of PR failing to promote representation are varied, but Israel always pops out in my mind because its system exacerbates many of the problems it was supposed to fix! Disregarding the obvious nuance of non-Palestinian Territory voting sovereignty and constituency divisions thereof, Israel proper is actually quite democratic. All citizens are able to vote, including Israeli Arabs, and their votes are tabulated in a proportional system that, in particular acknowledgement of Jewish History, looks to build consensus over majoritarian whims. Tragically, recent years in particular have proven this PR system complicit in provoking nearly every internal and international problem.

For starters, Israel's threshold means a notable amount of votes are thrown out (400,000+ votes, or nearly 10%, in the most recent election). Furthermore, the disparate party system enables extremist minority voices, such as Israeli Haredis, to thrive by appealing to particular ethnic and religious groups as opposed to broader platforms that demand larger support. Instead of minimizing extremism, the PR System actually maximizes it. With these voting blocks always securing significant chunks, the Israeli Left and Right fall into an inherent trap of poor outcomes: To govern, the Left need almost always partner with Arab Parties (some reasonable, some not), and the Right need partner with religious extremists who seek a 'Greater Israel,' Arab Inhabitants be damned. Considering the nation's fragile history, it is the right that dominates, with acute attention to extremist need in recent years for the sake of govern-ability, and the country's foreign and domestic policy continually pushed into radical territory.*

*There was a recent example of a centrist coalition emerging via support of the Arab parties, but its fragile nature meant it only survived 18 months before breaking down.

Eretz Yisrael Shelanu: This Radical Party would like to thank its constituents, but its voting system most of all

The political and policy results of this coalition have been anything but proportional. Economic policy often takes second fiddle to wartime and culture considerations- such as the right fighting for their religious constituents' ability to be paid by the state to study Torah and continually exempted from mandatory service in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). In addition to insane housing prices, fiscal imprudence, and a gradual outflow of capital, these politics have also further endangered an eventual two state solution. With even more radical calls for greater Arab occupation and the downright annexation of Gaza, the Israeli PR system seems to be particularly skilled at sewing discord.

Would such ideology be nonexistent under a different government system? Of course not, but a FPTP system would demand broader coalition building across religious, demographic, and class lines in a way that would promote nation-building in an organic manner. Sure, many point to America as proof that such may not be the case, but do not disregard the degree of ideological flexibility that many other nations witness due to their dynamic systems and strategic voting.

With the above study case-in-point, Proportional Representation remains a flawed option on the same grounds as FPTP. I would argue it is actually more likely to exacerbate tensions in racially and religiously diverse countries, but its sample size is still too small to surmise. Sure, FPTP is flawed, but everyone knows it, and often times rules can be constitutionally set in place to make it still inclusive and respectful to minority rights (ahem* Bill of Rights). PR is too adopting this flexibility, in some systems such as Germany's or Greece's, by adding additional bonuses for parties that win the most or giving special seats to specific candidates who win certain seats. But it still flawed. To truly and accurately represent the diversity of viewpoints of the population, Pure Proportional Representation would only work in a Direct Democracy System, something only possible in micro-states (...or Switzerland).

This argument is not to write off electoral innovations! New government systems are enticing, and the many state and local systems that have emerged in recent years, like Ranked Choice Voting and Top Two Primaries, strive for a more coherent way of addressing majority rule and whims. Alas, with my home state of Missouri voting overwhelmingly via ballot measure to ban Ranked Choice Voting, it is likely our current system will be the least bad option - at least in the Midwest.

Don't Show This Ballot in Jefferson City: Alternative Voting Methods are the newest casualty in the culture wars