Thank you very much! Indeed, that's what I thought too. But still, I wanted to hear your opinion. Thanks!

At one time I thought that elections also serve as a signal to other voters in the group for future elections. Even if I lose today at the national level, I am signaling to other voters at the local level that they can form a local coalition with me for local goals. The layering of the electoral systems and the fact that elections repeat means that my influence in an election is not only local but broader.

Elections also make it possible to assess the strength of a particular group accurately, as we saw in the Jerusalem elections in the struggle between Degel and Agudat Yisrael.

Is the Rabbi talking about the practical chance of making a net impact, or does he also think there really is no point in going to vote? I seem to remember hearing from the Rabbi that he brought up Kant's categorical imperative on this issue, that there is a moral obligation to go vote..

With God's help, eve of the new month of Kislev 5779

Let us not take lightly the power of the individual.

After all, the Hanukkah miracle, in which the few overcame the many and saved the Jewish people and its spirit, began with the initiative of a few individuals, Mattathias and his five sons, residents of a tiny village, "the periphery of the periphery." The spark lit by those few became a tremendous flame that brought victory over an empire.

All the more so in elections, where the individual is not required to endanger himself. Each person contributes his small part, which joins with many others to give more meaningful representation to his path and worldview. Especially since decisions are not infrequently made on the edge of just a few votes. And one who refrains from voting may cause his camp to lose.

There is also another moral aspect: the state gives voters a day off so that they will be free to vote. When a person does not exercise the right to vote, he is essentially receiving a benefit without "paying" for it.

With blessing, S.Z. Levinger

Noam,
There was an imprecise wording here. What I wrote is that voting does not have an effect. But there is still an obligation to go vote because of the categorical imperative. I discussed this in Column 122 and in the reference there to the Fourth Notebook, vol. 3.

S.Z.L., it's true that sometimes decisions are made by a few votes, but that applies only to the Knesset. We're talking about casting a vote in elections. There it never depends on a few votes (it doesn't matter whether I vote for Likud or Meretz, for certain it won't affect anything in any way).
The state is us. We give ourselves a day off and spend money on it that belongs to all of us.

With God's help, 1st of the new month of Kislev 5779

To D — greetings,

A few votes have critical significance even in Knesset elections. For example:

A. A party that receives "the electoral threshold minus one vote" — all 150,000 votes it received go down the drain. It turns out that the single vote that completed the threshold grants its party four seats! (As is well known to the voters of D 🙂 )

B. According to the Bader-Ofer law, the surplus votes beyond a full seat given to each party are distributed among all the parties according to their size. That is to say: a party that won "five seats minus one vote" will get only four seats, and the tens of thousands of surplus votes it received will be divided among the larger parties. The lack of a single vote costs a small party a whole seat.

D. Even among the large parties there is a situation where a single vote can determine which party gets more, and there is a situation where because of the absence of one vote, a party can lose a whole seat (and maybe even two).

And needless to say, in personal elections (as is customary in elections for mayors, and as once existed in elections for prime minister) — one vote can determine who will be elected.

And all these considerations exist even under the assumption that I am the only living person who didn't come to vote, but when many people say, "What does my one vote matter?" then those many will lose big because each one said, "What significance does my one vote have?" That is to say: it's not advisable to say such a thing…

With blessing, S.Z. Levinger

And regarding your claim that the day off is a right granted to each person by the public — that claim is legally correct, but not morally. The law that granted everyone the right to a day off is not a "decree of Scripture." It has one reason only: to enable everyone to vote. And one who does not vote exploits the right given to him contrary to the "intent of the legislator."

And blessed be MK Amir Peretz, who initiated a change in the law that only someone who actually votes should be entitled to a day off. A solution could also have been proposed that would help the self-employed, that a person could vote with a double envelope at a polling station near his workplace or business (as is customary for soldiers).

After all, the situation in which the economy suffers damage of billions of shekels because of the general day off, while only 30–40% go vote, is a scandal!

It would have been possible to eliminate the day off altogether by establishing that a person could determine his voting district also according to his place of work or business, and then it would be easier for him to vote near his workplace.

And they tell of a Jew who lived in Memel and whose business was in Königsberg, and when they demanded from him funds for Passover needs in Memel, he pushed them off with the claim that his business was in Königsberg; and when they demanded from him in Königsberg, he said: "I live in Memel." The two communities joined together and summoned the man to a religious court before the Malbim, who ruled that he had to contribute funds for Passover needs in the place of his business.

The man, who was an Enlightenment type and also insolent, demanded that the Malbim provide a source for his ruling, and said: "I am not willing for you to bring proof from the Talmud and halakhic decisors. I want an explicit proof from Scripture!" The Malbim answered him: after all it is written, "a man in Maon, and his work was in Carmel," and Scripture calls him: "Nabal the Carmelite." That is to say: a person is called by the place of his business and not by the place of his residence;

And the practical implication is that in the second round of the Ramat Gan mayoral election, Rabbi Michael Abraham can decide the outcome, even though his home is in Lod 🙂

With blessing, S.Z. Levinger, a man of Kochav HaShachar and whose work is in Jerusalem

It seems you didn't understand what I said; I didn't say there is no theoretical case at all in which a single vote has an effect, but that in reality it has never happened and never will because of the low probability

Could it be that there is a prohibition against voting in elections?
I'll explain my question.
After all, a significant part of running a city involves halakhic questions, budget management, Jews/Arabs, and so on and so on.
Clearly no public official conducts himself according to Jewish law, so what do we have to do with this trouble?

That's precisely why one needs to run to vote, so that more representatives will be elected who will try as much as possible to act according to the Torah, and will bring it about, with God's help, that even what is not proper will at least be in the category of "the lesser evil."

With blessing, the Rebbe from uto,

That is exactly my question, both regarding elections and regarding every other decision.
When it is known that the representative you choose will not conduct himself according to Jewish law / morality, is it preferable to try to minimize damage in order to strive for the lesser evil, even though the price is your involvement and your choosing a representative who does not act as he should, or is it preferable not to get involved, and even if a worse situation comes about, at least it does not relate to me and my actions, and whatever will be will be? (It seems to me this is an important philosophical/halakhic question, not necessarily only about elections: is it better to take an improper position out of several improper ones in order to minimize damage, or is it better not to take a position at all?)

It could be, but in my opinion there is no prohibition. You are a partner whether you want to be or not, since you are part of the game. You belong to this community, and everything is done by your power whether you voted or not. If you advocate separation of communities, then by all means separate.

Sh, regarding the lesser evil, see the Rabbi's article https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA/

That's not correct. I am part of the game in that I am affected by what happens, but I am asking in principle: when I have two bad options to choose from (and suppose it is in my power to choose the less bad one), and on the other hand I have the option not to choose at all (and then the worse option will happen),
what should I do from a halakhic / moral standpoint?
Choose the less bad option and thereby be directly responsible for the consequences of my choice, or not intervene, and then even if the bad situation comes about, it has nothing to do with me.
I think this is a question that needs attention; it touches not only elections but many decisions in life.

With God's help, 1 Kislev 5779

To Sh — greetings,

And if a person chose passive omission and thereby caused the worse result to be realized — is he not directly responsible for the result of his choice?

For in such a case Rabbi Yohanan said about Rabbi Zekharia ben Avkulas, who chose passive omission — out of concern for "lest people say that blemished animals may be offered" or concern for "lest people say that one who inflicts a blemish on sacrificial animals should be killed" — that his excessive humility "destroyed our House, burned our Temple, and exiled us from our land."

Is it proper to choose passive omission when it leads to catastrophe?

With blessing, S.Z. Levinger

With God's help, 1 Kislev 5779

To Sh — greetings,

Does choosing passive omission, which brought about the worse result, not impose responsibility for the result? Was this not Rabbi Yohanan's claim against Rabbi Zekharia ben Avkulas, that his choice to be concerned, by passive omission, for "lest people say that blemished animals may be offered" or "lest people say that one who inflicts a blemish on sacrificial animals should be killed," is what "destroyed our House of God"?

With blessings for a good choice, S.Z. Levinger

The case under discussion is not comparable to the proof. There, apparently, from the standpoint of the law the tanna'im disagreed about how one should act in that moral dilemma, and each had a rationale for his position, and it was not because of refraining through passive omission.
By contrast, in our case, choosing the lesser evil is an active choice, and it turns out that that evil is the result of your choice — that is, there is a direct causal connection between that evil and you. By contrast, non-intervention (even where there is an option to prevent the evil entirely) does not causally connect the person to the evil. The evil happened because of some factor, and I could have prevented it but did not; I am still not the cause of the evil. All the more so where I have no ability to prevent the evil, but only to choose actively the lesser evil — I do not think it is at all obvious that one should prefer choosing the lesser evil over non-intervention.