![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
election confusion
A few months ago, because my rabbi asked the congregation to do so, I registered to vote in the election for the World Zionist Congress. Our rabbis said that the outcome of this vote affects policy, allocation of funds, etc to the various movements in Israel, but they haven't gone into much detail yet.
My ballot arrived yesterday. Thus far I've also received one phone call and two paper mailnigs soliciting my vote for particular candidates. Our rabbis are encouraging a particular candidate. (Each "candidate" is really a slate, and you can't split your vote.)
The ballot was accompanied by brief platforms from the 11 slates in the running. It also, of course, came with instructions on how to cast a vote.
The only thing missing from all of this is a clear statement of what this vote accomplishes. I mean, each slate has its own areas of emphasis, but in order to choose intelligently, I have to know what the winners actually have the power to do.
This is not a vote for the government of Israel; even if this were the right time for such a vote, I'm not elligible. This seems to be tied into the government in some vague, unspecified way, though, and one of the solicitations I received was signed by a member of the Knesset.
I guess I will have to ask my rabbis for more information. The election web site doesn't contain this information either. Bah.
Based only on the campaign materials, here are my impressions of the slates.
1 (United Zionists): Long on words, short on content. "Not tied solely to political parties or religious interests". Not getting my vote unless they say something concrete.
2 (Green): I don't think environmentalism is the most important issue facing Israel, and that appears to be their only issue. I'll admit that I didn't read the entire statement because the print is very small. No vote here.
3 (Mercaz): This is the Conservative movement's slate. It appears that they stand for everything that I think matters from a Reform perspective, especially pluralism and women's rights in Israel. On the other hand, they seem to believe that appeasing terrorists can accomplish something. On the third hand, it's not clear to me that the winners of this election can influence policy in that area anyway. Maybe a vote.
4 (Cherut): Their major issue is standing firm against terrorist thugs. They claim to want "national unity by reducing religious and communal strife", but I'd like to know whether they would do that through pluralism or through kicking out the liberal movements. Possibly a vote, depending on more info, but probably not.
5 (Religious Zionists): Says my vote supports a bunch of organizations I've never heard of, and contains nothing else that's specific. Sounds like the religious right. No vote here.
6 (American Zionists for Unity): Sounds like they support a lot of the things I support. I don't know who they are. Maybe.
7 (Meretz): Pretty left-wing. Probably not.
8 (Arza/World Union): Lots of stuff I agree with, some probably too left-wing for my tastes, but short on detail so it's hard to tell. Maybe.
9 (Labor): I don't think it gets more left-wing than this. 'Nuff said.
10 (Likud): Interestingly, this one lists Herut among its supporters. I agree with them on foreign policy, but they don't say anything about most of the religious issues that I care about. Maybe, but probably not.
11 (ZOA): They list things they've done in the past (many of which I think are good), but don't say anything about future plans, leaving the reader to infer it. So probably not, but unclear.
So let's see, I've eliminated 4 or 5, but there are several I consider to be in the running. And I need to know more about what the winner can actually do before I can narrow the field further.
My ballot arrived yesterday. Thus far I've also received one phone call and two paper mailnigs soliciting my vote for particular candidates. Our rabbis are encouraging a particular candidate. (Each "candidate" is really a slate, and you can't split your vote.)
The ballot was accompanied by brief platforms from the 11 slates in the running. It also, of course, came with instructions on how to cast a vote.
The only thing missing from all of this is a clear statement of what this vote accomplishes. I mean, each slate has its own areas of emphasis, but in order to choose intelligently, I have to know what the winners actually have the power to do.
This is not a vote for the government of Israel; even if this were the right time for such a vote, I'm not elligible. This seems to be tied into the government in some vague, unspecified way, though, and one of the solicitations I received was signed by a member of the Knesset.
I guess I will have to ask my rabbis for more information. The election web site doesn't contain this information either. Bah.
Based only on the campaign materials, here are my impressions of the slates.
1 (United Zionists): Long on words, short on content. "Not tied solely to political parties or religious interests". Not getting my vote unless they say something concrete.
2 (Green): I don't think environmentalism is the most important issue facing Israel, and that appears to be their only issue. I'll admit that I didn't read the entire statement because the print is very small. No vote here.
3 (Mercaz): This is the Conservative movement's slate. It appears that they stand for everything that I think matters from a Reform perspective, especially pluralism and women's rights in Israel. On the other hand, they seem to believe that appeasing terrorists can accomplish something. On the third hand, it's not clear to me that the winners of this election can influence policy in that area anyway. Maybe a vote.
4 (Cherut): Their major issue is standing firm against terrorist thugs. They claim to want "national unity by reducing religious and communal strife", but I'd like to know whether they would do that through pluralism or through kicking out the liberal movements. Possibly a vote, depending on more info, but probably not.
5 (Religious Zionists): Says my vote supports a bunch of organizations I've never heard of, and contains nothing else that's specific. Sounds like the religious right. No vote here.
6 (American Zionists for Unity): Sounds like they support a lot of the things I support. I don't know who they are. Maybe.
7 (Meretz): Pretty left-wing. Probably not.
8 (Arza/World Union): Lots of stuff I agree with, some probably too left-wing for my tastes, but short on detail so it's hard to tell. Maybe.
9 (Labor): I don't think it gets more left-wing than this. 'Nuff said.
10 (Likud): Interestingly, this one lists Herut among its supporters. I agree with them on foreign policy, but they don't say anything about most of the religious issues that I care about. Maybe, but probably not.
11 (ZOA): They list things they've done in the past (many of which I think are good), but don't say anything about future plans, leaving the reader to infer it. So probably not, but unclear.
So let's see, I've eliminated 4 or 5, but there are several I consider to be in the running. And I need to know more about what the winner can actually do before I can narrow the field further.
WZC
I'm not an expert, but what I think the WZC does is control the "Jewish Agency" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). The Jewish Agency is the actual owner of large chunks of land in Israel, and they have a pretty hefty budget, most of which is spent in Israel (but not exclusively? I'm not sure). I think that they can spend it on things like shuls, land use (since they own lots of it), social programs, etc., but not directly on the army.
Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong!
results
Here are the results (%s rounded):
Arza/World Union, 41.87%
Mercaz, 22.10%
Religious Zionists, 20.05%
Meretz, 3.93%
ZOA, 3.04%
Cherut, 2.13%
Labor, 2.10%
Likud, 1.17%
Confederation/Bnai Zion, 1.14% (I guess that's "united zionists")
AZU, 0.89%
Green, 0.69%
Invalid ballots, 0.88%
Yeah, more invalid ballots than Green.
So not the ideal mix (this specifies a delegation mix; it's not winner-take-all), but decent on the whole.
Re: results