Israelis should envy the US midterm elections

In Israel, when we think about the US midterm elections, we tend to focus primarily on what they might mean for a military strike on Iran or for American lawmakers’ positions toward Israel. But many Israelis and Americans may not realize the full significance not just in the outcome of the election, but in the fact that these elections take place. Just two years ago, Americans voted in their president, and now, in the middle of his term, they have an opportunity to have their voice heard again in a national vote that could change the balance of power in Washington. 

In this respect, here in Israel, we can only envy the Americans. Several aspects of Israel’s system stymie the opportunity for Israelis to exercise their democratic rights to their full potential. 

First, Israel has no midterm elections — only elections to the Knesset, which are supposed to take place every four years. True, Knesset elections are frequently held ahead of schedule, but that does not change the fact that between elections, we have no formal means of expressing our satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the government’s performance, nor, more importantly, to strengthen or weaken a check on the power of the executive branch, as can be done by changing the makeup of Congress. This shortcoming has been particularly evident over the past four years: the period of the judicial overhaul, the October 7 catastrophe, the hostages, and the war. Throughout this period, we had no opportunity to demonstrate through the ballot box whether we supported the government’s course of action. There were protests and opinion polls, of course, but no actual vote.

Second, and closely related to this, Americans elect far more representatives to far more political institutions than we do. In Israel, we vote only in Knesset and local government elections. Americans elect their president, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and representatives to government institutions at the state level (California, Texas, and so on), the county level, and the local level. Other democracies offer additional opportunities to vote, including referendums and elections to the European Parliament.

The data are unequivocal: In a comparative study conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute examining 35 democratic countries, we found that Israel has fewer electoral arenas than any of the other democracies surveyed.

Moreover, even Knesset elections, for all their importance, offer voters extremely limited opportunities to express their preferences. The reason lies in Israel’s electoral system: we vote only for lists of candidates, with no ability to express a preference for particular candidates or influence their ranking on the list. Nor does Israel have electoral districts, like Americans have in the House of Representatives, which could give greater voice to the specific needs of the areas in which we live and provide elected representatives with a stronger incentive to serve the public. Here, too, Israel stands alone as the only developed democracy whose parliamentary elections have neither a personal nor a regional component.

Israel is a vibrant democracy and even excels in certain aspects of democratic life, such as its active and engaged civil society. But when it comes to the relationship between voters and their elected representatives, our ability to express our preferences and priorities, and the commitment of elected officials to respond to them, we lag far behind other democracies.

A range of reforms could help address this problem. The simplest and most moderate wouldn’t necessarily create new electoral arenas, but it would introduce a personal component into elections in a manner that would increase democratic representation. This could be done, for example, through a system known as a “semi-open ballot.” Under this system, voters would still choose a party list on election day, but would also be able to indicate their support for several specific candidates on that list. Candidates who receive a large number of personal votes would move higher up the list. An additional reform that is more complex, and should be undertaken with judicious, long-term strategic planning, would be to divide Israel into electoral districts. This would bring elected officials “closer” to those they are representing, incentivizing leaders to advance policy addressing local issues and giving the leaders a specific electorate they must answer to.

Both reforms would increase Israelis’ influence over elected representatives — and strengthen their accountability to us. In the longer term, serious consideration should be given to establishing additional institutions of government, such as an upper legislative chamber or an elected regional tier of government, whose representatives would be directly elected by citizens on a different date from general Knesset elections.

The implications of each of these proposals must be examined thoroughly, drawing on international experience and giving preference to cautious, moderate reforms. With these considerations in mind, however, the need for reform to strengthen the relationship between voters and their elected representatives has never been more apparent than it is today.