Gizo
How Gizo voted in 2022
119 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| מחל Likud | 38.66% 46 votes |
+15.2 |
| פה Yesh Atid | 21.01% 25 votes |
+3.2 |
| כן National Unity | 10.08% 12 votes |
+1.0 |
| אמת מפלגת העבודה בראשות מרב מיכאלי | 9.24% 11 votes |
+5.6 |
| ט Religious Zionist Party | 5.04% 6 votes |
−5.8 |
| ל Yisrael Beiteinu | 2.52% 3 votes |
−2.0 |
| שס Shas | 2.52% 3 votes |
−5.7 |
"Against national" is the gap, in percentage points, from the national result in the same election. It is what turns the number into an answer.
Show 2 more lists that did not enter the Knesset
These lists got votes here but fell below the national threshold (3.25%), even where their share here was far larger.
| מרצ | מרצ השמאל של ישראל בראשות זהבה גלאון | 9.24% | 11 | +6.1 |
| קץ | באומץ בשבילך | 1.68% | 2 | +1.4 |
What happened to these votes
11 people in Gizo voted for מרצ השמאל של ישראל בראשות זהבה גלאון. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 9.24% here, 2.9 times its national share. Nationally it stopped at 3.16%, below the 3.25% threshold, and won no seats.
Download the data: CSV · JSON — every election, not only the one in the table. UTF-8 with a BOM, so that Excel shows Hebrew correctly.
119 voters out of 150 eligible.
There is no path here. The map places a locality only in elections where at least 300 valid votes were counted; below that, a handful of ballots moves a whole percentage point and the position would be noise, not a finding. This locality has no stable position in any election.
Gizo against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: HaYogev · Bet Yehoshua · Gan Hayyim
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| HaYogev | 500 |
| Bet Yehoshua | 579 |
| Gan Hayyim | 430 |
| Arugot | 553 |
| Kefar Netter | 544 |
| HaGosherim | 548 |
| Sede Hemed | 543 |
| Hogla | 411 |
10 elections in Gizo
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 150 | 119 | 79.3% | +8.7 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 150 | 122 | 81.3% | +13.9 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 146 | 113 | 77.4% | +5.9 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 145 | 115 | 79.3% | +9.4 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 143 | 114 | 79.7% | +11.3 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 127 | 102 | 80.3% | +8.0 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 126 | 103 | 81.7% | +14.0 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 120 | 86 | 71.7% | +9.2 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 73 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 80 | 62 | 77.5% | +11.9 | The results → |
In years when the Central Elections Committee published no count of eligible voters by locality there is no turnout, and the line breaks there. It is not filled in by guesswork.