Making MKs accountable By Aharon Nathan Haaretz newspaper 13/03/06  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/693300.html The movement from the present proportional electoral system to a regional (constituency) system is now firmly on the agenda. However in choosing such a system we should not only aim for the best in theory but also aim for what is most suitable to answer the basic problems facing us. These problems include a fragmented Knesset, unstable coalitions, a failure to draw our Jewish tribes together and above all to integrate our minorities into our mainstream political and social life. For 58 years our present electoral system not only did little to solve these problems; in fact it did much to sharpen and perpetuate them. Today it is actually weakening our internal cohesion.  Many contributions have been made by academics and public figures. The most convincing of these however is “TR” Total Representation (YITSUG SHALEM – “YESH”). This system fuses the British First Past the Post system with the present pure Proportional System as practiced today in Israel. In essence Israel is divided into 90 Constituencies to elect 90 Members of the Knesset on the Westminster model. Then the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates in the same 90 constituencies are added together and distributed amongst those candidates of the various political Lists/Parties in proportion to their contribution, to elect the other 30 Knesset members. This is a simple system, easy to operate and easy to implement. Voters vote for one single candidate, thus creating a bond between the candidate and later on with the Knesset Member and his or her constituents. This personal bond which is absent today will increase the accountability of the MK. The big difference between the present system and TR is that the one member constituency MK under TR represents, and therefore feels accountable throughout his tenure, to ALL his local population whom he needs for his re-election. The ratio of  the 90/30 combination of regional and proportional representation is essential as it offers optimal balance and prevents the system tilting back to the present pure proportional representation with all its defects. Except for TR all other regional systems offer run-off elections and/or two ballot requirements or complicated mathematical calculations that leave the ordinary citizen cold and confused. TR offers one ballot that minimizes corruption at different stages and avoids costly national primaries. Regional candidates are chosen at any time at local level throughout the 4-year duration of the Knesset.  Under some other regional systems, for example a 60/60 system, voters vote for a successful party candidate in a regional ballot and then might go on to vote for the same party in a second national ballot. Therefore the same party is given two bites of the cherry giving it sweeping dominance. Under TR every single vote is counted, albeit with different weighting, to elect directly the 90 Regional MK and indirectly the 30 Party/List MK. Every vote is counted only once. It is the votes lost to unsuccessful candidates that are used to elect the party MKs from amongst the same unsuccessful regional candidates to give protection to smaller parties and ensure some balance in the Knesset. In this way everybody engages in the process and shares in the outcome.   TR is a fair and balanced self-adjusting system. The votes for the 90 regional seats are balanced, to a degree, by the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates used to elect the 30 Party/Lists MKs. Therefore it becomes much easier for a neutral commission to draw the boundaries for the regions on a consecutive territorial basis without the necessity of getting involved in making decisions based on ethnic or religious considerations. TR makes it particularly difficult to manipulate regions based on such considerations thus minimizing Gerrymandering, a process which aims to favour particular parties or candidates and which is the curse of fixing boundaries. The introduction of TR will bring the Knesset nearer to the people through their locally chosen MKs. It strengthens its authority in the eyes of the citizens and makes it easier for it to back and sanction difficult decisions taken by a stable government. It asserts the primacy of the Legislator in the eyes of the public over the Judiciary. The cornerstone of TR is the single MK Constituency.  In the case of Israel it is of paramount importance to draw, during the process of election, all the voters in that locality together and to push the candidates to assume a central political position away from extremism to attract all the voters. Multi member regions, as advocated by some, would deepen the division of the local communities along immigrant, ethnic and religious lines. It replants the defects of the present system into the regions. It can bring about the Lebanonisation of Israel. The most important outcome of the introduction of TR Total Representation is to integrate and Israelise our minorities without infringing on their religious beliefs or ethnic aspirations. The process of TR with its basic emphasis on single member constituencies would help to interweave and enmesh our minorities into our political and social institutions. It would prevent the emergence of an internal Hamas from extremist elements amongst them, something which will be far more dangerous than the present external Hamas. And finally TR can through its implementation bind together the new “Jewish tribes” of Israel into local rather than disparate immigrant communities thus hopefully slaying the ghosts of Ashkenazi / Mizrahi / Russian / Ethiopian etc. that the PR system reinforces.   The writer is a member of CECI, The Citizens Empowerment Centre in Israel specializing in electoral reform.