Midrakh Oz
How Midrakh Oz voted in 2020
411 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| מחל הליכוד בהנהגת בנימין נתניהו לראשות הממשלה | 55.23% 227 votes |
+25.8 |
| פה כחול לבן בראשות בני גנץ | 24.82% 102 votes |
−1.8 |
| שס התאחדות הספרדים שומרי תורה תנועתו של מרן הרב עובדיה יוסף זצ"ל | 6.08% 25 votes |
−1.6 |
| טב ימינה הימין החדש – הבית היהודי – האיחוד הלאומי | 4.14% 17 votes |
−1.1 |
| אמת העבודה - גשר - מרצ | 3.65% 15 votes |
−2.2 |
| ל ישראל ביתנו בראשות אביגדור ליברמן | 2.68% 11 votes |
−3.1 |
| ג יהדות התורה והשבת אגודת ישראל - דגל התורה | 2.43% 10 votes |
−3.5 |
"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 3 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.
| נ | קול הנשים | 0.49% | 2 | +0.4 |
| נץ | עוצמה יהודית בראשות איתמר בן גביר | 0.24% | 1 | −0.2 |
| קי | שמע בראשות נפתלי גולדמן | 0.24% | 1 | +0.2 |
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.
412 voters out of 561 eligible.
The line is the locality's path across the elections; the filled dot is the latest.
The position is derived from locality-level results and describes a place, not people. Movement on the map does not show that particular voters changed their vote.
Midrakh Oz against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Gilat · Lavi · Kefar Ezyon
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Gilat | 771 |
| Lavi | 380 |
| Kefar Ezyon | 367 |
| Shetulim | 1,066 |
| Shahar | 387 |
| Poriyya-Newe Oved | 705 |
| Hosha'aya | 1,041 |
| Ora | 601 |
10 elections in Midrakh Oz
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 574 | 409 | 71.3% | +0.6 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 564 | 402 | 71.3% | +3.8 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 561 | 412 | 73.4% | +1.9 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 555 | 402 | 72.4% | +2.6 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 555 | 394 | 71.0% | +2.5 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 517 | 396 | 76.6% | +4.3 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 484 | 330 | 68.2% | +0.4 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 394 | 265 | 67.3% | +4.8 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 261 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 374 | 267 | 71.4% | +5.8 | 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.