Insanity and Israel’s Electoral System

As election season heats up, familiar patterns are once again repeating themselves, and the Israeli public is becoming increasingly disillusioned and despairing. It’s clear why. The Narcotics Anonymous Basic Text defines insanity as “repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” Israel’s electoral system is insane.

Israel is not suffering temporary political crises or episodic political dysfunction. It is suffering from a failed governmental system, which lies at the root of so many of the severe issues it faces: repeated elections, disproportionately empowered narrow sectoral interests, and extortionist coalitions that hold national policy hostage. Politics has become a zero-sum game marked by tribal confrontation and chronic inability to make and sustain long-term policy, even on matters of security. Critical decisions are delayed, diluted, or avoided altogether. Rather than serving as it should as an independent check on the executive branch, the Knesset functions largely as an extension of it. It is therefore no surprise that we have a hyperactivist Supreme Court that involves itself in operational details of the executive branch. Residents of the country’s fringes and many segments of the population wherever they reside feel that no one cares about what they are going through—including violence.

These phenomena are not accidents. They are the direct results of how Israel elects its parliament. Israel is the only Western democracy with a single-ballot, national-only, proportional system. In such a system, the link is broken between voters and those who govern. The political survival of most members of Knesset depends less on performance and public accountability than on their standing with party hierarchies. Voters, in turn, lack specific representatives to hold responsible. The result is a system that is democratic in name only.

The solution is not yet another technical adjustment or short-term fix. It is structural reform. Israel must introduce single-member regional elections for, say, half the Knesset’s 120 seats. Israel is the sole Western democracy without district-based representation. With district elections, voters know who represents them, representatives know whom they answer to, and citizens have the ability at the ballot box to oust non-performing representatives. That is the foundation of political accountability.

The argument here is not for abandoning proportional representation altogether but for correcting its excesses. A mixed electoral system—combining national party lists with single-member districts—offers a practical and balanced path forward. Half of the Knesset would be elected from defined geographic constituencies, restoring accountability, while the remainder would continue to be elected proportionally to reflect national political diversity.

District elections tend to curb extremism and moderate political behavior because they reward candidates who can build broad support within their districts, not just mobilize narrow bases. Incentives shift away from ideological purity and toward pragmatic governance, pulling politics toward the center.

More importantly, district elections would improve the quality of representation. Candidates would need to engage directly with voters and understand local concerns—not merely secure a favorable position on a party list. Elected representatives would have clear constituencies and tangible incentives to deliver results. They would not be able to merely disappear into party machinery. They would need to answer to voters—regularly, directly, and concretely—fundamentally changing political incentives and accountability. Failure would carry consequences: voters would replace them.

Are there challenges? Of course. But the usual objections are invalid. For example: We are too small for districts. In Britain, electoral districts have about 106,000 citizens, while in an Israel with 60 districts, the number would be about 165,000. Districts drawing is subject to gerrymandering. Indeed. But somehow all other democracies in the world have figured out systems they can live with. The smart people of Israel will be able to figure it out too. Now is not the time, given Israel’s security and social challenges. No, now is precisely when such structural reform is critical. A system that cannot produce stable and good governance that the people trust is a strategic liability.

Electoral reform is not a marginal issue. Regional elections for the Knesset are not a cosmetic change but a necessary transformation. Without such change, Israel can expect even worsening dysfunction, instability, extortion, and division.

To Western Olim, district elections are intuitive. But native Israelis have an “iPhone problem.” Before the iPhone, people didn’t know they needed one; afterward, they couldn’t imagine living without it. In my experience, once district elections are explained, people easily grasp their logic and advantages.

There are variations worth considering: maybe a second Knesset chamber and/or (a more carefully designed) direct election of the prime minister. But the original sin of Israel’s failed governmental system is the Knesset electoral process. It is a strategic threat to our survival and well-being.

Change will not happen top-down. Members of Knesset cannot be expected to alter how they were successfully elected. We need a new party of statesmen from across multiple disciplines and political viewpoints whose single agenda would be to force the next government to institute electoral reform and then immediately call for elections under the new system.

It’s time to institute district elections to the Knesset. Now!