There is a debate in the Knesset - Israel's parliament - about allowing a free-distribution newspaper to continue as a free distribution newspaper.
Israel HaYom's email/web edition for Sunday, November 16, 2014, included a head that read: Israel Hayom, tomorrow and forever!. One paragraph in the article caught my attention:
We regret the behavior of the MKs who supported this bill in its preliminary reading. The bill represents a serious blow to democracy, and the Israeli Knesset became the only parliament in the democratic world to have backed, even in just a preliminary reading, a bill that, if enacted, would interfere with the free market, reach into the public's pockets and impose a single ideological line on society. MKs who support this bill have turned their backs on their constituents.
The editorial writer blames the bill on a competitor paid-circulation newspaper; the truth of that accusation is subject to debate.
There are a number of problems with the Israeli form of government, at least from the perspective of a U.S. voter.
If a Republican and a jackass run for office, vote for the jackass
FIRST, in Israel voters vote for a party list, not individuals.
The party places its chosen few on a list, with the most marketable candidates at the top of the list.
For a brief period Israel tried electing the prime minister separately from the rest of the Knesset, but while popular with the people it was quickly discontinued by the professional politicians.
The higher on the list, the greater chance the candidate has of gaining a seat in the Knesset - IF the party doesn't rearrange the list after the votes are countered.
In the not-so-long-ago in many U.S. states, voters could vote by ticket; pull one lever and the vote was cast for all candidates of the particular party. Back in the day, the U.S. really had only two parties represented on the ballot by their cartoon identities. The statement above, "If a Republican runs against a jackass…" was often heard in rural (and sometimes not so rural) America. Unfortunately, some people still vote a "straight" ticket, never mind the quality of the candidates.
Bottom line: The Israeli voter is voting an ideology. While Israel has no lack of political parties, it's possible a voter cares about more than a single issue and there are candidates that would better represent the voter in specific issues.
Knesset members live where?
Voters in the Several States elect two senators from every state, and a number of representatives based on the state's population. The senators may live any place in the state they represent. The representatives must live within the district from which they were elected.
Because they are relatively local to the voter base, the representatives, more than the senators, are supposed to be responsive to all voters' appeals. (That isn't always the case; in my district the representative ignores appeals from Israeli-Americans while rubber stamping everything her boss puts forth.)
Usually the "representative in the neighborhood" works out well for all - both the politician (who gets re-elected) and to the voter who has a voice.
In Israel, most - not all, but most - Knesset members live in or near Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. There was a deputy prime minister - David Levy - who lived in Bet Shean, and there was another Knesset member who lived in the northern city of Kiryat Shmona, but they were the exceptions to the rule.
Transparency in blogging
For many years I worked in U.S. newspapers; first as a printer, then as a reporter, and finally as an editor. Israel HaYom, despite being free, is a newspaper - as versus a "shopper" that is more than 70% advertising. (By the way, ALL commercial media is supported by advertising, not the number of issues sold or listeners listening/ viewers viewing.)
I also lived and worked in Israel, both in the hinterlands (Zefat) and in the Tel Aviv metro area (Ramat Aviv, Holon). I have relatives in Yavne, Haifa, and Bet Shean so I have first hand experience with Israeli politics.
Two of the hardest things for a person who grew up in the U.S. to accommodate are the Israeli political system - based on, but hardly identical to, England's system - and the number and frequency of strikes.
Israel may not have more strikes than in the U.S., but most U.S. strikes are localized and there are many alternative products from competitors. The U.S. government, when it has strong leadership, also is more likely to take action in a strike that has a nationwide impact (e.g., most recently the air traffic controller's strike).
I won't suggest the U.S. political system is perfect, but for this scrivener, it certainly is superior to England's and Israel's.
