The Israeli Electoral System Is Not Representative Of Proportional Representation

On 27 October 2026, Israelis will go to the polls to elect the 120 members of their parliament, the Knesset.

Like the majority of countries, Israel uses a system of proportional representation to elect their parliamentarians. However, the Israeli electoral system is far from common among the countries that use proportional representation.

Indeed, as the Israel Democracy Institute describes, ‘Israel is the only developed democracy with neither a personal nor a regional component in its electoral system’.

This is an important point to remember when defenders of First Past the Post (FPTP) try to use the Israeli electoral system to argue that proportional representation is not suitable for the UK.

Implying that the Israeli system is representative of proportional representation is like saying that the duck-billed platypus is typical of mammals, when it is virtually the only species, out of nearly 7,000 types of mammals, which lays eggs.

Let’s look in turn at the two characteristics of the Israeli system identified by the Israel Democracy Institute, which in combination are unique.

No personal component

When voters cast their ballot at a Knesset election, they do not have the opportunity to vote for individual candidates. Voters are presented with a ballot paper listing the parties that they can vote for. The candidates representing the party list are not identified on the ballot paper, apart from sometimes the lead candidate.

This is known as a closed list system of proportional representation. Each party wins seats roughly in proportion to the number of votes it receives and the seats are filled in the order of the list of candidates that is published in advance by the party.

Defenders of FPTP often argue that an important part of the system is the ability of voters to vote directly for individual candidates. However, this is something that proportional systems can also provide.

Indeed, elections in Scotland provide two different examples of proportional systems where voters are able to cast ballots for individual candidates.

For elections to Scottish local councils, voters use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system. On the ballot paper, voters rank candidates in order of preference, with a ‘1’ beside their favourite candidate, ‘2’ beside their next choice and so on. Parties will often stand more than one candidate in each area. In the Scottish local elections between 3-4 councillors are elected to represent each area, with the transferable vote counting mechanism ensuring the councillors elected broadly reflect the political preferences of voters across the area.

For Scottish Parliament elections, voters use the Additional Member System (AMS). Under this system, some representatives are elected using the First Past The Post system, where voters cast a ballot for one candidate in single-member constituencies. However, crucially, voters also get a second vote, for a party list. The votes cast on the second ballot ensure a far more proportional outcome than would ensue under FPTP alone. In Scotland, the party list part of the system is ‘closed’. However, some countries have ‘open’ list systems, where voters can express a preference for individual candidates within a party’s list.

No regional component

Israeli elections are very unusual among proportional systems in that there is only one single nationwide electoral district. The country is not divided up into smaller regions or constituencies for the purpose of electing representatives. Among the few other countries that adopt this approach are the Netherlands and Slovakia.

Defenders of FPTP argue that this approach would leave voters feeling remote from their representatives, who would not have a strong local link. Again, however, it is perfectly possible for proportional systems to foster strong links between parliamentarians and a local area.

If we look again at the two proportional systems used in Scotland, we see how this is possible.

In local elections, councils are split into multiple electoral areas, each usually electing between 3-4 councillors. If applied at a parliamentary level, this would ensure that parliamentarians would remain firmly connected to a constituency covering a relatively small geographic area.

Under the AMS system used for Scottish Parliamentary elections, the FPTP element ensures that representatives retain a strong connection to a defined locality. In the Party List part of the system, Scotland does not follow the Israeli approach of treating the whole country as one electoral district but splits the country up into 8 regions, meaning the representatives elected via the party list also retain an attachment to an area much smaller than the whole country.

The proportional system we adopt is in our hands

So, next time you hear a defender of FPTP trying to use the Israeli electoral system as a reason as to why we should not adopt proportional representation for UK general elections, remember the duck-billed platypus. The Israeli system is unique among the proportional systems that are used around the world.

We have the agency to shape and adopt a proportional system that is best suited for our circumstances and electoral traditions. It is perfectly possible to introduce a system that is proportional, where voters can cast a ballot for individual candidates, and that retains a strong link between representatives and localities.