Nobody I know who works towards instituting a majoritarian system here has any illusions of how quick it might be changed, or how it might fix all of our problems. This isn't like some magic tonic that lets us be "just like America." Those of us pushing for a constituency system have a very basic belief in some intrinsic values:
- the individual accountability to the public that is possible only when one is directly elected
- the tradition of real debate and shared destiny, across social divides. that occurs in majoritarian systems
- the priority of public service - to a single, national public - over the sectarian patronization institutionalized by proportionalism
- that an individual voter should have the last word to express his preference for who, specifically, will influence law and policy in his name; that no vote is transferable by anyone other than the voter himself.
- that minorities must not be able to force a majority to act against that majority's own interests.
These are values that not only guide a system of governance, they transform and characterize a nation. It's a question of commitment to the principle that we must make national decisions as a single nation. Those who do not want to be part of that nation will just have to make an adjustment, either by participating and thereby throwing in their lot with the mainstream, trying to influence from within by appealing to the majority, or by disenfranchising themselves and removing themselves from the process of influencing policy. Proportional systems enable some factions, and their MKs, to openly manipulate our political system without committing to its national well-being. This alone should make Sarah an enthusiastic advocate of a constituency system.
Sarah hinted that Israeli corruption in gerrymandering would result in single-party hegemony. Well, we live under a hegemony right now: the hegemony of a sacred status quo among the power elite that has no association in the public. Yes, gerrymandering is a constant challenge in constituency systems, however there are political mechanisms in constituency systems that can address this issue.
The question is, what motivates the public to demand and produce political excellence? What system produces and benefits patriots who serve a true national vision? Not the proportional system, with its built-in sectarian entitlements; the majoritarian system does, because it pushes the public to form a mainstream majority.
Sarah's blames Israelis for just voting poorly. We Israelis, who vote for parties like Gil (the pensioners' party), or the Green Party, or other parties with narrow interest, just don't take voting seriously. She fails to consider that our proportional-parliamentary system, with its post-election horsetrading, makes it impossible for voters for major parties to actually know whom or what they are supporting with their votes. A person's vote becomes a fungible resource of a party central committee, which acts as the citizen's proxy. The Israeli voter is vulnerable to trendy whims because such a system will not reward individual excellence or integrity. Coalitions effectively end up making liars out of each elected leadership. Tragically, the only parties that can be relied upon to stick to their election promises tooth-and-nail are those narrow-interest parties.
Elections are a major part of a democracy's sensory-cognitive center, the mechanism that provides a living vertebrate with reliable sensory information and efficient response functions. It should be clear to all of us, especially Sarah, that our system makes us politically aphasic; we are unable to translate our national will into a choice that can be reliably perceived or expressed. Give us a system in which individuals commit their names and careers to campaign platforms, one that actually empowers the winners to execute on those promises, and we Israelis will make good decisions. It's not the people, Sarah, it's the system.
