Ramat Zevi
How Ramat Zevi voted in 2003
209 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| אמת העבודה - מימד בראשות מצנע | 41.15% 86 votes |
+26.7 |
| יש שינוי מפלגת החילונים ומעמד הביניים | 20.57% 43 votes |
+8.3 |
| מרצ מרצ - הבחירה הדמוקרטית - שחר | 16.75% 35 votes |
+11.5 |
| מחל הליכוד עם אריאל שרון לראשות הממשלה | 13.40% 28 votes |
−16.0 |
| ם עם אחד בראשות עמיר פרץ | 2.87% 6 votes |
+0.1 |
| ל האיחוד הלאומי ישראל ביתנו - מולדת תקומה | 1.91% 4 votes |
−3.6 |
| ב המפד"ל - המפלגה הדתית לאומית, המזרחי - הפועל המזרחי בארץ ישראל | 1.44% 3 votes |
−2.8 |
| כן ישראל בעליה בראשות נתן שרנסקי | 0.48% 1 votes |
−1.7 |
"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 (1.5%), even where their share here was far larger.
| קנ | עלה ירוק | 0.96% | 2 | −0.2 |
| נ | ישראל אחרת כי נשבר מהפוליטיקאים | 0.48% | 1 | +0.3 |
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.
212 voters out of 302 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.
Ramat Zevi against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Kefar Hess · Bet Hanan · En Dor
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Kefar Hess | 552 |
| Bet Hanan | 320 |
| En Dor | 432 |
| Bet Lehem HaGelilit | 312 |
| HaGosherim | 307 |
| Gan HaShomeron | 333 |
| Newe Yaraq | 474 |
| Shimshit | 624 |
10 elections in Ramat Zevi
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 488 | 386 | 79.1% | +8.5 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 468 | 392 | 83.8% | +16.3 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 446 | 355 | 79.6% | +8.1 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 446 | 373 | 83.6% | +13.8 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 445 | 373 | 83.8% | +15.4 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 395 | 329 | 83.3% | +11.0 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 387 | 309 | 79.8% | +12.1 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 346 | 254 | 73.4% | +10.9 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 230 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 302 | 212 | 70.2% | +4.6 | 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.