Electoral Reform: Benevolent Dictatorship Needs Update

You may also like...

4 responses

  1. Chaya K says:

    I agree. Regional representation has the advantage that the member of parliament (as in Britain when I was living there) presumably has the interests of his or her constituents as a priority, if only so that he or she will be reelected. Of course it depends on how the areas are divided up who will be better represented in any given constituency.
    I didn’t understand, in the context of all your other statements, why you say that the united arab list is good. It seems to be the opposite of what you are suggesting in regard to popular representation, although I see that it does reduce somewhat the number of parties on the lists.

    • Sheri Oz says:

      I am saying that reducing the number of parties is good. It remains to be seen how the United Arab List will stabilize (or not). In any case, regional representation would allow the Arab population to select an MK who would truly represent their local needs and interests rather than those of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria and still be able to elect Arab representatives.

  2. Sheldon Dan says:

    It sounds as if that MK did not really want to hear from his constituents. Imagine if my representative said that–he would have turned a potential voter into an opponent. But apparently because MKs represent a party rather than the individuals, they can get away with this.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.