Deqel
How Deqel voted in 2003
111 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| מחל הליכוד עם אריאל שרון לראשות הממשלה | 39.64% 44 votes |
+10.3 |
| יש שינוי מפלגת החילונים ומעמד הביניים | 25.23% 28 votes |
+12.9 |
| אמת העבודה - מימד בראשות מצנע | 19.82% 22 votes |
+5.4 |
| ל האיחוד הלאומי ישראל ביתנו - מולדת תקומה | 4.50% 5 votes |
−1.0 |
| מרצ מרצ - הבחירה הדמוקרטית - שחר | 4.50% 5 votes |
−0.7 |
"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 4 more lists that did not enter the Knesset
These lists got votes here but fell below the national threshold (1.5%), even where their share here was far larger.
| קנ | עלה ירוק | 2.70% | 3 | +1.5 |
| נץ | חרות | 1.80% | 2 | +0.7 |
| צ | צומת | 0.90% | 1 | +0.8 |
| רק | הירוקים | 0.90% | 1 | +0.5 |
What happened to these votes
3 people in Deqel voted for עלה ירוק. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 2.70% here, 2.2 times its national share. Nationally it stopped at 1.20%, below the 1.5% 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.
112 voters out of 220 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.
Deqel against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Bet Zera · Allon HaGalil · Kefar HaNasi
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Bet Zera | 392 |
| Allon HaGalil | 330 |
| Kefar HaNasi | 304 |
| Shave Ziyyon | 404 |
| Shamir | 345 |
| HaGosherim | 307 |
| Newe Yaraq | 474 |
| Kefar Bilu | 491 |
10 elections in Deqel
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 280 | 177 | 63.2% | −7.4 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 277 | 187 | 67.5% | +0.1 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 270 | 183 | 67.8% | −3.7 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 265 | 170 | 64.2% | −5.7 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 258 | 188 | 72.9% | +4.4 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 241 | 164 | 68.0% | −4.3 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 260 | 168 | 64.6% | −3.2 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 248 | 155 | 62.5% | −0.0 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 120 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 220 | 112 | 50.9% | −14.7 | 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.