“The New Likudniks” – Another Look at Failures of Representation (Column 85)
The “New Likudniks” as a current illustration of the “Trojan horse”
The column returns to an idea already presented in column 11: a group with worldview X joins a party of worldview Y in order to change it from within. The “New Likudniks” present themselves as the silent majority, the middle class, and unrepresented citizens seeking influence through Likud, and in the rabbi’s view they resemble earlier phenomena such as Feiglin or Tkuma—just from the other side of the political map. He admits that there is something creative and even amusing in this move, especially in the helplessness of those trying to fight it without understanding it.
Why it is so hard to disqualify them within democratic rules
The column stresses that the group’s explicit claims sound legitimate: social concern, integrity, fighting corruption—values that do not ostensibly contradict Likud. It is precisely on diplomatic and security questions, where Likud is actually distinctive, that they maintain a suspicious silence, which makes it obvious to almost any observer that this is a political putsch. But it is still very hard to disqualify: in a large party one may legitimately identify with only some of its values, one may legitimately try to influence it from within, and in ordinary democratic language those who try to block the phenomenon appear as enemies of democracy, while those undermining representation present themselves as democracy’s champions.
The correct diagnosis: not moving the party, but a representation failure
The column insists that the question is not whether Likud is allowed to move left or right; if most of its voters want that, it is their right. The real problem is a representation failure: a fictitious member influences Likud’s list in the primaries, and then in the general election votes for Meretz, Labor, or any other party. He thus effectively enjoys double influence over the composition of the Knesset, while a “real” Likud voter is underrepresented, because the list chosen on his behalf has already been shifted by people who will not support it on election day. This is an artificial and unfair upgrade of the Trojan members’ political power.
Why politicians and legal advisers are looking in the wrong place
The rabbi argues that Naftali Bennett, Likud’s legal adviser, and the party tribunal sense that there is a problem here, but diagnose it incorrectly. Once they try to test “real identification” with the party’s goals, or frame the issue as fairness toward this or that candidate, they miss the point: one cannot really measure ideological loyalty, and declarations and filters can always be bypassed. As long as they do not understand that this is a structural representation failure, their solutions too will remain improvised, weak, and ineffective.
The simple solution: participation in primaries should count as voting for that party
The column proposes a solution already presented earlier: whoever participates in a party’s primaries will have his general-election vote automatically counted for that same party, and will not be able to vote again on election day. This way, someone who genuinely wants to influence Likud from within can do so, but will not receive double power; and someone whose entire goal is to skew the list and then choose another party will lose the incentive to join. In the rabbi’s view, this resolves the representation failure in one stroke while preserving a fair arena of competition between different political camps.
The broader lesson: democratic slogans are replacing thought
At the end of the column, the rabbi warns against using slogans about “civil rights” and “democracy” without thinking about what they really require. He fears that even such a reasonable solution would be attacked as anti-democratic, simply because people are used to reacting from the gut rather than from the head. The broader conclusion is that political values are not supposed to be empty slogans: without precise conceptual diagnosis, one can produce outcomes in the name of democracy itself that actually contradict democracy.
With God’s help
Let me begin by saying that I actually very much enjoy saying, “I told you so.” In Column 11 I explained the phenomenon of the “Trojan horse” in our politics, where a group of people with worldview X enroll as members in a party that advocates worldview Y, with the aim of voting in its primaries and changing its character and conduct. There we saw the problems inherent in this phenomenon, the difficulty of dealing with it, and the ways in which it can nevertheless be done. These days we are encountering it in all its glory, and seeing the glaring helplessness of those who are trying to confront it.
“The New Likudniks”
In recent days, press reports have appeared that the Likud has halted online registration to the party because of suspicion that there is a large group of fictitious registrants, calling itself “The New Likudniks”, entering the party and intending to change its character in more socially left-wing directions. This is how they present themselves on their website:
| We are you. We are you. We are the middle class. We work, study, serve, pay taxes. We love the country from left and right, from top and bottom. We are the silent majority, whose voice has not been heard for many long years in the corridors of government and in Knesset votes, and we are very dissatisfied. We are the New Likudniks. We work, pay taxes, serve in the army, do reserve duty, build homes in Israel. After the summer of 2011 we understood that we are not represented. When we stand in the public square and point to the problems in the current situation, other sectors know how to wield political power. They are tycoons who employ lobbyists and offer tempting jobs to senior officials. They are Haredi parties that exploit the division in secular society in order to obtain more and more benefits and rewards for the sectors that elected them. And to top it off—small sectors enroll en masse in parties and influence the composition of the slate and the agenda of the Zionist parties. The loss of faith in Israeli politics caused people to keep their distance from politics. In this circular process we were left with people who do not represent us and who look after themselves and the sectors that elected them. These people are not us. They have narrow interests and are not concerned with the good of the state and the public as a whole. We decided to act. We decided to enroll en masse in the Likud Party in order to influence it from within. Each individual is a small voice, but as a group with a clear agenda we have the ability to exert influence in the centers of control and power. Join the Likud and join us, |
It is reported that about 12,000 people have so far signed up, a very significant number relative to the party’s total membership. Many have already pointed out that this is a Feiglin-style phenomenon, since people who are not identified with the party’s path join it in order to change it, except that this time, many argue, it is being done from the other side of the political map.
The difficulty of dealing with the phenomenon
It is no wonder that in a democratic system it is very difficult to deal with such a phenomenon. The New Likudniks claim that they are authentic Likud voters who want to restore it to its original path: greater social involvement and concern, integrity in public office, against Bibi, in favor of the investigations, and so on. On the face of it, this is an argument that could be true, since it is hard to point to what in all this does not fit the Likud’s path. Not for nothing, however, they do not make their voices heard on diplomatic and security questions. Many claim that this is because they are leftists, or at least that a considerable percentage of them are. Even if you find some among them who really do believe in the Likud’s path (there are those who are sent to be interviewed in the media and explain this in the name of all the New Likudniks), it is hard to escape the feeling that this is a political putsch. The main indication of this is that all their declared goals, presented in the box and in interviews, are also agreed to by people in Meretz and Labor. What distinguishes the Likud is not integrity in public life and social concern, values on which everyone agrees, but precisely the political and security questions, and regarding those this group maintains a deafening silence.
On the other hand, what is illegitimate about focusing on only some of the values and goals without addressing all of them? Everyone is permitted to focus on a particular goal and not act on behalf of the others. How can one disqualify a member who makes these declarations, so long as he claims to identify with the Likud’s goals? Even if he declares that he does not identify with all the goals, a party is a collection of many people with many values, not all of which are shared by all the members. It is legitimate that there be members who identify only with some of the goals and work on their behalf. It is also legitimate to try to influence from within, and perhaps even to convert the Likud to Meretz’s worldview. Indeed, some of them openly declare the legitimacy of joining even if they do not identify with the Likud’s nationalist and right-wing values. They focus on social aims and public integrity. Is that bad?[1]
At the end of the day, we have here a phenomenon whose purpose and direction are obvious to everyone, but which is very difficult to pin down and point to, and certainly to deal with using democratic tools. Every person has the right to join any party and to influence it with his vote. These members state their intentions very clearly on the page reproduced above in the box. There they appeal to the whole public, right and left, the silent majority of all kinds, to join the Likud. It seems to me that leftists cannot say that they identify with the Likud’s goals. But when you ask them, they will tell you that identifying with some of the goals is legitimate, and that influencing through voting is the lifeblood of democratic conduct, and so on and so on. Seemingly they are right, for we are all committed to democracy and its values.
In fact, what we have here is the creativity of people trying to act within the rules against the rules themselves. We saw similar phenomena in Column 48, and there they were actually presented with no small degree of fondness. I will not deny that even now I feel considerable fondness for this phenomenon and for the creativity in it, and no less than that I also feel great joy at the expense of those who are trying unsuccessfully to deal with it, bound by their own stupidity. It is always pleasant to see the wise defeat the foolish, and since unfortunately that does not always happen, I can only join in and rejoice at their misfortune. As is well known, our Sages already said There is no joy like rejoicing in another’s downfall (ibid., ibid.).
Responses
This is basically a Trojan-horse phenomenon, as described in Column 11. Already then I sent that column to Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked so they would understand the problem they had with Tkuma, but of course I received no reply. I did so because the confusing democratic rhetoric can mislead, since it does not allow people to understand what exactly the problem is. In the democratic newspeak that has been created around these phenomena (from Feiglin, through Tkuma, to the New Likudniks), precisely those who support democracy (that is, who want proper representation without failures) are presented as acting against it, while precisely those who undermine it (and push toward faulty representation) are portrayed as the very knights of democracy. This is a cynical use of the rules of democracy—albeit a sophisticated one, and therefore very appealing to me. They force the system to do what it very much does not like to do: use its head a bit, both in formulating a diagnosis and in finding solutions.
Some time ago it was reported that Naftali Bennett is demanding that the Knesset members of Tkuma be elected in primaries (in the meantime he has retreated somewhat, and exempted Uri Ariel from this burdensome obligation). I thought perhaps he had read my remarks, but from reading the article it is clear to me that he had not. He bases his demand on fairness and on the fact that Eli Ben-Dahan ought to be elected whereas Uri Ariel and Bezalel Smotrich ought not to be. He does not understand that this is not about concessions to this or that person but about a fundamental problem of representational failure. He simply drew the conclusions and intuitively sensed a moral problem, but did not really diagnose it correctly. He is reacting to the predicament and trying to push his own agenda (without really understanding that his opponents are indeed acting unfairly in a way that must be prevented and fought). Had he understood the fundamental problem, he could have explained it simply and received broad, full, and self-evident support for his position.
The legal adviser and the Likud tribunal, too, are now examining the phenomenon of “The New Likudniks,” and from his remarks it appears that he is looking for a way to characterize a member’s identification with the movement’s goals so that he can disqualify the joiners on the basis of lack of identification. But this is of course nonsense, since precisely because of the problems above it is impossible really to do that. At most they will make the members sign a general and empty declaration of identification with the Likud’s goals. Perhaps they will shut down the New Likudniks group, but how will they prevent each of them separately from joining the Likud and voting in exactly the same way?
It is clear that the legal adviser, too, is only looking for a way to do what everyone understands must be done, and is hiding it behind supposedly democratic slogans. If I may venture a guess, he probably will not succeed unless they wear the members down completely and they give up, or unless they simply fail to recruit enough unscrupulous people to join them (as happened with Feiglin). He too does not understand the problem, and therefore will not find the solution.
The conclusion is that one simply has to use one’s head to understand what the problem is, and then there is a chance that the solution will probably be easy, clear, and self-evident. A bit of thinking always sharpens our focus, and it never hurts.
Diagnosis: What exactly is the problem?
As stated, as in many other areas, here too the solution and the way of dealing with the matter begin with a correct diagnosis. The foolish usually lose (see Column 48). To cope with this, one must first examine what exactly the problem is, and what exactly it is that one wants to prevent. From the public statements it appears that what they want is to prevent the Likud from moving leftward (or rightward, in Feiglin’s case). But why? By what right? If a majority of Likud members want that—then it is their full right. If so, that cannot be the problem, or at least not the declared problem that can be handled within a democratic framework. True, such a phenomenon creates a certain chaos in the system, but there is here a basic right of citizens to influence and to vote for whomever they wish, and in whatever way they wish to do so. This is difficult to deal with without throwing out the baby with the bathwater (that is, harming democracy).
I will not repeat here what I wrote in Column 11, but anyone who read it understands well what is at issue. The diagnosis is that the phenomenon of fictitious enrollment creates a representational failure. There is no principled problem with the Likud moving left or right according to the wishes of its voters. The problem that should and must be addressed is that a representational failure is created here. The phenomenon of fictitious enrollment prevents proper representation of the views within the public. I explained there that it creates a situation in which a voter whose views are those of today’s Likud receives under-representation in the Knesset. Those fictitious members in effect influence the Likud slate and skew it leftward (which of course is entirely legitimate), but then in the general election they vote at the ballot box for Meretz, Labor, or the Jewish Home, and thus influence again who will be elected to the Knesset. In effect, each such member votes for the Knesset twice (once in determining the Likud slate that will be elected and a second time in helping bring Meretz representatives into the Knesset), while our miserable Likud voter does not vote even once (because the representatives he himself brings into the Knesset through the Likud will, as noted, hold Meretz views). This is, of course, a somewhat extreme description, but it captures the essence of the problem (the more precise calculation can be seen in Column 11). Fictitious enrollment creates a significant but artificial boost in the representation of these Trojan members, at the expense of the other honest voters.
The solution
I already wrote the solution as well in Column 11. Once we have properly understood the problem, the solution is simple and very clear. Members who vote in the primaries automatically cast their vote in the general election for the party they joined. They can no longer vote in the general election, since they have already given their vote to a particular party. Thus the New Likudniks can join the Likud to their heart’s content, but they will not be able to vote again in the general election, since their vote has already been given to the Likud. A little thought shows that this solves the problem in one simple stroke. Anyone who does not really want the Likud will not join it (since his vote in the general election will go to the Likud), and anyone who joined sincerely will affect representation in the Knesset only once and not twice (because he will not be able to vote in the election). From that point on, everyone can join whichever party he wants and influence matters as he sees fit. That is already a fair fight, and voters on the right and on the left, the modern and the conservative, or any other type of voter, can influence matters as they see fit without representational failures that give extra status to one who acts dishonestly (especially if his true positions are close to a party without primaries. I showed in Column 11 that this magnifies the failure even further).
Instead of all the efforts and stratagems that will from now on be made in order to deal with the phenomenon, it is preferable to use one’s head a little. That saves a great deal of futile effort and needless expenditure of energy in wrong and unhelpful directions, and guarantees success. Proven and tested.
A closing remark: Are our values in the gut or in the head?
I have already noted that the democratic rhetoric used on this issue succeeds in confusing people and politicians alike. Fictitious members explain to us that we are acting against democracy, and many of us find ourselves without an answer. I fear that if a bill were brought before the Knesset not to allow members who vote in primaries to vote in the general election, and instead to give their vote to the party they joined, it would be struck down by the High Court of Justice because it contradicts the citizen’s fundamental rights (to vote and to influence).
Needless to say, this is nonsense, since all these members did receive their right and vote, except that they did so not on election day but on the day they joined the party. But when slogans come from the gut, people have no ability to relate to them critically and judiciously. Incidentally, this does not happen only here. The values we use are in many cases stamped into us as slogans and not as ideas that we understand and identify with. This leads to problematic conclusions and results that actually contradict those very values, without our being able to understand where we failed. In the next column I will try to bring more examples and expand on this question.
[1] True, this somewhat ignores the fact that the Likud is also socioeconomically right-wing and not only right-wing on political and diplomatic matters. But I will not go into that here.
Discussion
Because you can’t force everyone to join. Besides, you’d also have to stipulate that all parties hold primaries, otherwise you haven’t solved the problem. This is much simpler and more effective.
Personally, it matters less to me that everyone have the same degree of influence, and more that they have the ability to influence to the same degree. If it matters to someone to have influence, he should understand that under the current system the way to do that is by joining a party, and that option is open to him.
The problem that not all parties have primaries is a good point, but it still leaves the decision in the voter’s hands (if primaries are critical to people, they shouldn’t vote for parties without primaries, or they should join a party close to their views).
The problem I see with treating a vote in the primaries as a vote for the party is that you don’t know whom you’re voting for. There could be a situation where I put Feiglin in the ballot box and actually voted for David Bitan.
I once read that there was an attempt at a communist takeover of the Labour Party in England that failed when every member was required to sign a document agreeing to the dissolution of the Soviet Union or something similar. I’ll try to look it up.
Ofir, this has nothing to do with the question of what matters to you. The question is how to prevent a failure. Did you read Column 11? If there are no primaries, it doesn’t help that you don’t vote for them. The problem is that others do vote for them.
As I said, that won’t help. They’ll declare that they support conquering the entire biblical Land of Israel as far as the Euphrates and the Tigris, and afterward they’ll do whatever they want.
Considering that the Likud party didn’t even present a platform in the last elections, it’s very hard to talk about a political putsch with respect to that party. This phenomenon is not only amusing but also justified – in the absence of an alternative (because the Left makes a complete mockery of itself), Likud itself chose not to be a party with any ideology whatsoever, but simply to be a ruling party. A government with Lapid and the war against the Haredim, or with the Haredim themselves and a boycott of Lapid; a government with Bennett and Ariel on its right, or with Livni and Herzog (which didn’t happen, but came close) on its left. A government that releases terrorists or a government that forbids returning territory – that’s Likud. A flexible ruling party with no ideology of its own.
And once there is no ideology of its own, you can’t complain about an internal putsch. There is no value inherent enough in Likud that someone acting against it would thereby be carrying out a putsch (other than, of course, going into the opposition). A Haredi MK who supported liberal views (say, Rabbi Amsalem in Shas and the conversion issue, though he has mitigating circumstances) might be considered a rebel, and likewise an MK in the Jewish Home who supported territorial withdrawals, or an MK in Meretz who supported privatization. In Likud there simply is no such value, and therefore you can’t stage a putsch against it. Proof: the platform.
A. Likud, devoid of a platform and political principles both in the diplomatic sphere and in the economic sphere, is reaping what it sowed. Indeed, they have no way to point to someone and say “not a real Likudnik.” They deserve it.
B. In Feiglin’s case, there was a group that claimed that Likud’s leadership had betrayed Likud’s original pre-Oslo platform on their own initiative and had no right to do so, and that group acted out of Likud’s own principles and did not want to pull it further “to the right.” But in the case of the New Likudniks, they are definitely not trying to rely on Likud’s founding principles. In my view, the first case is morally perfectly fine and the second is not.
C. In my opinion, the best solution is open primaries (or at least that the ranking of the list be open, as the Zehut party does). True, here too there is a danger of takeover, but if the party functions properly and markets itself as it should, the incentives for the group trying to take over decline, and that reduces the problem.
I think that beyond the double influence of the New Likudniks, there is another problem here: a party member has influence far beyond his relative share in the population. For the sake of argument, let’s say that someone who joins a party has 100 times more influence over the identity of the government than an ordinary voter in the general election. So preventing party members from voting in the general elections would not necessarily deter the New Likudniks. They would be willing to give up one left-wing vote in order to gain 100 left-wing votes inside Likud. Therefore, I think the right way to deal with the problem is to use the same weapon against the Left. That is, right-wing people joining Meretz and Labor. That way, left-wing members would face a dilemma whether to pull Likud leftward, or defend against Meretz being pulled rightward. As long as there is no fear that someone will pull Meretz rightward, left-wing people can join Likud without concern. Or in other words, the best defense is offense.
The solution you proposed ignores the psychology involved in the public’s choice of a party. I tend to believe that people, under the theoretical assumption that there is a new party with an identical platform to Likud’s (whatever its platform may be) and Likud with an “upgraded” platform, would continue to vote for Likud in large numbers, even though the new platform would be far from their worldview. Therefore, it seems to me that the solution of full transparency about a certain party’s platform, including all the aspects it emphasizes, should be defined as a party constitution, and every member and candidate would declare those same positions, and it would not be possible to change them. Want to think differently? Fine, in another party.
I thought so too at first, and there really is truth in that claim, but on the other hand, if there are people ignorant enough not to bother finding out the positions of the party they vote for, maybe it’s better not to try to protect their electoral power. That is, whoever wants to have influence should be sufficiently involved and aware, and whoever doesn’t bother to make even a minimal inquiry should bear the consequences.
Regarding the ending with the criticism of the Supreme Court.
What does that really mean? After all, there are smart people sitting there (in my opinion) who studied the profession, so why are there cases where we know in advance that they will not provide the right answer?
I see in this the possibility that at the end of the day (much as the public likes to say the opposite) the Supreme Court too is captive to the people and afraid… . You can see that a lot.
First, the most harmful party enrollment is that of labor unions and large pressure groups that influence the wage agreements of the big unions.
Second, a solution that would definitely pass the Supreme Court is that the primaries be held on election day. Anyone who chooses a certain party can also vote in its primaries. With the publication of the mandates, they would also publish which members were elected.
Parties would publish a platform and the elections would be primarily based on the platform.
So you can already blame Likud voters in the last elections, since no platform appeared on their pages; what you had was a pig in a poke of a brand.
A choice is not based only on a platform written on the internet, but also on the prominent people in the party and its leader, their statements in the media, and their commitment to the party leader. If opponents of Bibi begin to emerge within Likud, I assume that issue will make the headlines, which will cause Likud voters to abandon it in favor of more unified parties.
Rabbi Michi,
There is a difference between elections to the Knesset and your proposal that primaries be considered a vote for the Knesset. In Knesset elections I know exactly whom I’m voting for and what his platform is (or I choose to vote even though he doesn’t have one, which is also a kind of platform). If I were to give my vote to a party already in the primaries, I have no way of knowing what the results of the primaries will be and for whom I am actually voting for the Knesset. It is entirely possible that in the primaries I support candidates who will not win a realistic spot, yet the very fact of my joining has already obligated me to vote for the Knesset for people who do not represent my views. True, this is not the distortion mentioned here in the post as a Trojan horse, but a representational failure could also arise here.
There are two problems with your proposal:
1. Practically speaking, it is unfair to “force” me to vote Likud if I joined Likud. I may strongly identify with Likud’s values but not be willing to vote for it if the list that was chosen is very different from my own preferred list. Especially today, when ideologies are blurred, people vote according to the list and less according to the platform (and the proof is the parties’ chase after popular personalities and not necessarily experienced politicians, the competition between parties over who has the best “team,” etc.). Another issue is the amount of time that passes from the primaries to the elections, during which many things can happen that may change the voter’s mind.
2. The proposal reduces the problem (a little) but does not solve it completely, because in my opinion the bigger problem is that a very small public determines which representatives a very large public will send to the Knesset. Even if you don’t give them voting rights in the general elections, they still leveraged their power more than the ordinary citizen. If I vote Meretz, I would prefer to join Likud and insert my own representatives into the ruling party, even at the price of not voting for Meretz.
I actually connect with the solution of forcing everyone to vote in the primaries, with one small refinement:
At the time of the general elections to the Knesset, the voter would choose both a party and its composition (he could rank as many spots as he likes; spots he did not choose would be drawn by lot among all the candidates). This would probably also require a technological change that would replace the ballot box (which in any case will probably come soon). This would solve problem no. 2 completely (all voters of the same party would have equal weight in the primaries). It reduces problem no. 1, since everyone would choose without knowing exactly the identity of the elected candidates (but with a pretty good estimate, since the choice is spread over a broad public). Maybe we would also gain from this that the focus would be more on ideology and less on models, journalists, and soccer players.
Yondav, you are making a serious mistake, and apparently you didn’t notice what I wrote. It makes no difference at all whether they have a platform or not. As I wrote, the problem with fictitious enrollment is not identification with the party, so it doesn’t matter whether there is anything to identify with. The problem is that one joins one party and votes for another, and a representational failure is created. Mark this well.
Yosef, you also didn’t understand the point. See my reply to Yondav above you here.
Oren, that’s what I explained in Column 11. If a party member has more influence, then let everyone join, and if right-wing voters are not willing to join Likud or join Meretz fictitiously, that’s their problem. They should blame themselves. Therefore the main problem is precisely the representational failure and not other things. Parties that have no primaries receive a built-in advantage. For parties that do have primaries, the problem is smaller, though of course it still exists (because decent people don’t join fictitiously, and then the balance is gone).
Moshe, first of all, what you say is utterly impractical: who will decide what fits the platform, and how does one change and influence the platform? Set up a new party every time? That’s not serious.
But in any case, what you say does not solve the problem of representational failure. Again and again the same misunderstanding of the problem comes up here. And whoever has this or that psychology – let him deal with it. I don’t need to solve people’s psychological problems, but to give them proper and fair representation. That’s all.
M.G., first of all, I’m not sure in advance. You got carried away. I’m only concerned about a case that could happen. I don’t think the Supreme Court is afraid of anyone. It does what it thinks – except that it doesn’t always think correctly.
Eli, that proposal came up on the radio today. I think it’s not all that practical, but in principle it is possible and solves the problem. It essentially does the same job I’m proposing, since only someone who votes for the party can vote in its primaries. The difference is only technical, and that is not important for our theoretical discussion here. Interestingly, in the radio discussion they also interviewed a professor of political science who also did not understand the problematic issue and again came back to this nonsense about morality and joining a party you don’t identify with, and whether identification can be defined (because there are many shades and many values, and everything I explained here), etc. etc. It turns out that even people for whom this is a profession don’t understand the issue (the pseudo-sciences, as I already said?)
Yuval, that is not a representational failure. If you don’t want to cast a blank-check vote for that party (and that means you don’t really identify with it but are only waiting on the fence to see what comes out of it), then don’t join. In this model, joining is intended only for members who identify with the party in almost any situation. A voter is not the same as a party member. In any case, it cannot be possible to allow you double influence.
With respect, I truly don’t understand why that failure is different from the option of not voting in the elections (in both cases you had the option to have more influence and chose not to). There are no conditions for joining. Want more influence? Join one party and vote for another, persuade people of your positions, or vote in the elections (if you didn’t vote).
And I don’t think it’s an excessive request to know exactly what I’m buying when I vote (I’m not talking about the resolution of some insignificant law, but about agendas that are the party’s core) and to get that after the elections.
A good diagnosis of the problem, but in the solution there are, in my opinion, flaws (admittedly technical ones, but the solution is also practical and technical). I’ll try to point out a few (out of many):
If the primaries are held before the elections –
The voter is deprived of the possibility of changing his mind (more time to think…).
Events that happen between the primaries and the elections are not taken into account (an indictment or conviction of Bibi would presumably affect the voter’s opinion somewhat).
There would in effect be two election campaigns, which would split the investment (financial and mental) in each campaign in half. Less sharpening of positions, debates, and the like.
It’s not fair to parties that don’t have primaries (parties with primaries would already buy themselves a few mandates in the first elections, while parties without primaries would start from zero. This has major practical implications for resource allocation and campaign planning).
In short, there are a great many technical flaws.
It seems to me preferable to apply band-aids, as the Likud court and its helpers are trying to do, rather than set out on strange adventures.
Moshe R., it seems to me that it’s not all that complicated.
First, there are parties that don’t have primaries, so I can’t join them fictitiously. Would you want to give the voters of those parties double power just because they are not democratic?
Second, what about a small party competing with a large party? The large one can allocate 105 of its members to eliminate the small one, while all the small party’s voters would change nothing in the large one. Does that sound reasonable to you?
And third, may I steal from you on the grounds that my house is wide open and you too can steal from me? Stealing representation is not decent, and therefore the fact that others can also be indecent does not excuse it.
I stand by my argument. In the absence of unifying principles, what happens is that the party becomes a platform in which various candidates with different opinions try to rise to the top. In such a reality, it makes sense that a party member would want to advance his candidate who represents him, and vote for the party only if that candidate gets in.
This is exactly the situation Likud is in today. One cannot complain to a person, “You joined, therefore you should vote for the party,” because in the absence of a platform, joining means joining people and not joining a party. There is no such thing as “joining Likud”; there is joining Ze’ev Elkin or the liberals, etc. That is what happens when a party has no direction: one moves from a politics of ideas to a politics of people, and from that perspective your representational-failure argument is not valid because the candidate is the party member’s representative, not the party.
Rabbi, first, you too relate to that “psychology” of the masses by the very determination that there exists a reality in which a group of people with worldview X joins a party that advocates worldview Y. After all, if a party has no value apart from the people within it (that is, it represents nothing but its elected officials), then there is no problem at all with such joining (let us set aside for a moment the double voting) that people with right-wing views would not vote for this party and would choose another party. Therefore, I assume that the rabbi also agrees that a party has values not necessarily connected specifically to the people who compose it today, but to the historical whole of that party (this does not mean it cannot change. It only means that one can determine with respect to a certain person that he is not suited to the character of the party). And if so, the real failure (and much more serious than a limited number of people receiving more power than the normal voting person) lies in ignoring that character and shrugging off pre-election promises to the voters. The very fact that there is no obligation (anchored in law) to create a simple and comprehensive platform of the essential views that the members of that party share with each other, and moreover that there is no reference to the agenda after the elections (it is despicable to be elected on the basis of a certain platform and then return Gush Katif when you know that the voters who chose you did not vote for that).
I don’t think my idea is utterly unworkable. The worldview of Likud (economic and diplomatic alike, those positions that the members agree on), or of any other party, can be laid out clearly (after all, if they cannot say what they want to do, how will they do it) in a way that will allow the voting public to understand what they are choosing, will obligate that party’s elected officials to adhere to those same agendas (you were elected and changed your mind? No problem, vacate your place and run in the next election in another party), and will prevent Trojan horses from inserting candidates who do not match that party’s foundational outlook. In that situation, I don’t think anyone would have the drive to try to influence another party – at least not on matters important to that electorate.
Hello Yosef.
First, be careful your argument doesn’t break (you’re standing on it).
Second, apparently you didn’t read or didn’t understand what I said. Read it again.
There is no point in repeating it again. My remarks have no connection whatsoever to the question whether a party has a platform or not. That’s all. Beyond that, your assumption is very simplistic. A party has a general direction even if it does not have a clear and sharp platform.
All right, I read Column 11 again, and therefore I’ll sharpen/change my words:
A. First, I do not deny the Trojan horse phenomenon; it exists and it is very problematic. Nevertheless, I think one should distinguish between the mathematical plane and the moral plane. The fact that there is a representational failure in the method does not necessarily mean that whoever does this is dishonest. At least my earlier claim was that in a case where a person truly believes in the party only if his candidate gets in, it makes sense that he would not want to vote for it if that candidate does not get in, and I do not see a moral flaw in that. What is true, however, is that if there were a binding platform, then one could argue that a person who joins a party while holding views different from the platform truly aims to be a Trojan horse, and there is a moral flaw in that. Therefore, in the absence of a platform for Likud, I do not see any moral flaw in the New Likudniks (despite the representational failure).
B. Regarding the solution you propose: until now I doubted it and disagreed because I thought it was unfair to ask a person to vote for a party that does not represent him (if his candidate did not get in), but this morning I woke up in a different spirit 🙂 and suddenly I’m beginning to connect to the idea. After all, one can simply say that the price of joining a party includes accepting the chance that your candidate will not get in and in the end you will be obligated to vote for a party that does not represent you. But I still need to think about it.
If we’re already allowing people to choose a party before they know who the elected candidates representing it are, we can simply hold the primaries on election day, and voting would open only to someone who has already voted for the party (if it’s electronic).
And of course there is a not-simple problem here in giving people the option to vote without knowing who is going to represent them in the Knesset.
A. As stated, we really do not agree. Maybe when you wake up tomorrow you’ll identify with that too? 🙂
B. Exactly as I said.
Itai, are you with us? Did you read what was written here? You’re repeating (I think for the fourth time) what has already been written again and again above.
Unless I missed something, there are two problematic points here:
1. Automatic voting on the basis of party membership opens the door to genuine violations of individual rights. For example: people would be forced to join (= vote for) a party, votes would be bought, etc. Things that the secrecy of the ballot protects against.
2. Even if we believe the New Likudniks that they really do vote Likud, they are substantially changing the content of the brand and profiting from many votes of people who will vote Likud almost by force of habit.
In my opinion, none of the solutions covers both of the above. Perhaps a combination of primaries with a Schulze vote (for parties), but of course that isn’t practical.
I corresponded with a friend and he raised a point that I only now noticed you didn’t address, namely the issue of money.
After all, in the end representation is also a result of the amount of money invested in the campaign. Joining brings money into the party, money that is used to increase its campaign and thereby increase its representation. If a party decides not to be democratic in order to carry out the “Trojan horse” maneuver, then although it increases its representation in the other party, it loses representation for itself in that it has less money to invest in the campaign. In my opinion this is an important component that greatly reduces the representational failure as you presented it
.
What do you think about that?
Completely negligible. The joining fees are tiny. Beyond that, even if the fees were significant, in my opinion there are no offsets. A person who joins a party he does not vote for is not decent. If you steal from an old woman, it doesn’t help that in return you help her cross the street as a Boy Scout deed.
In my opinion, just ask them whether they admire Bibi or not. If they do admire him, they’re Likudniks; if not, kick them out of the party.
But even by tying party membership to voting, a representational failure is created –
I join a certain party and suddenly the list that gets elected is completely different from my views. According to your proposal, my vote goes to people to whom I am not committed.
The current situation is preferable – it also gives more influence to those who care (and take the trouble to join a party and influence it), and on the other hand it is still completely democratic. De facto there is no concern about a party vacuum (that is, that a large public will have no one to vote for), and therefore there is no practical concern about representational failure. If Likud had real meaning – a takeover of Likud by die-hard anti-Likudniks would cause the creation of a new Likud, and in any case whoever wants to vote for the “values” of Likud would find a home.
I’ve already explained this several times here.
The problem with the rabbi’s solution is harm to the freedom of choice of weak people.
If I am a member of a workers’ committee who is forced to join a party together with the other members so as not to lose my job.
Or a woman whose domineering husband forces her to vote for the party he supports
(the method is known: the husband forces the wife to enter the polling booth with the child, supposedly for the “democratic experience,” when in practice the child is meant to spy on the mother and report to the father how she really voted)
Therefore, if the rabbi’s proposal is accepted, that whoever joined a party has also given it his vote at the ballot box, then all those weak people will be forced to join parties against their will and will lose their right to choose.
These are trifles of no importance whatsoever. I think they can also be solved technically (for example, that joining a party would also be done in a secret ballot), but it isn’t worth the discussion.
Bravo!!!
Sometimes even trifles can undermine a good idea; that is the way of reality.
The moment there is a database of party members’ names against which a cross-check will be made as to whether a citizen has voting rights or has already used them through party membership, there will be concern that the database will leak and all those weak people will be afraid of being exposed.
Isn’t this Yoav Kish’s bill?
The description of the problem is accurate.
The solution you propose is “top-down” – changing the method through the system.
I’m a bit skeptical about the system’s ability to understand and implement good solutions.
Why not go in a different direction? If *everyone* joined parties, that would solve the problem too.