Newe Yam
How Newe Yam voted in 2003
105 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| אמת העבודה - מימד בראשות מצנע | 40.95% 43 votes |
+26.5 |
| מחל הליכוד עם אריאל שרון לראשות הממשלה | 25.71% 27 votes |
−3.7 |
| יש שינוי מפלגת החילונים ומעמד הביניים | 14.29% 15 votes |
+2.0 |
| מרצ מרצ - הבחירה הדמוקרטית - שחר | 10.48% 11 votes |
+5.3 |
| ל האיחוד הלאומי ישראל ביתנו - מולדת תקומה | 2.86% 3 votes |
−2.7 |
| כן ישראל בעליה בראשות נתן שרנסקי | 0.95% 1 votes |
−1.2 |
"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 (1.5%), even where their share here was far larger.
| קנ | עלה ירוק | 3.81% | 4 | +2.6 |
| רק | הירוקים | 0.95% | 1 | +0.5 |
What happened to these votes
4 people in Newe Yam voted for עלה ירוק. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 3.81% here, 3.2 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.
106 voters out of 149 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.
Newe Yam against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Hazerim · Bet Lehem HaGelilit · Kefar Blum
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Hazerim | 524 |
| Bet Lehem HaGelilit | 312 |
| Kefar Blum | 349 |
| En Dor | 432 |
| Bet Hanan | 320 |
| Ma'oz Hayyim | 323 |
| Ramat HaShofet | 320 |
| Midreshet Ben Gurion | 318 |
10 elections in Newe Yam
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 211 | 155 | 73.5% | +2.8 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 210 | 153 | 72.9% | +5.4 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 210 | 158 | 75.2% | +3.7 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 209 | 162 | 77.5% | +7.6 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 211 | 154 | 73.0% | +4.5 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 205 | 163 | 79.5% | +7.2 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 219 | 162 | 74.0% | +6.2 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 175 | 128 | 73.1% | +10.6 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 116 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 149 | 106 | 71.1% | +5.5 | 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.