Hamadya
How Hamadya voted in 2003
200 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| אמת העבודה - מימד בראשות מצנע | 54.50% 109 votes |
+40.0 |
| יש שינוי מפלגת החילונים ומעמד הביניים | 16.50% 33 votes |
+4.2 |
| מרצ מרצ - הבחירה הדמוקרטית - שחר | 12.50% 25 votes |
+7.3 |
| מחל הליכוד עם אריאל שרון לראשות הממשלה | 10.00% 20 votes |
−19.4 |
| ל האיחוד הלאומי ישראל ביתנו - מולדת תקומה | 3.00% 6 votes |
−2.5 |
| ם עם אחד בראשות עמיר פרץ | 1.00% 2 votes |
−1.8 |
| כן ישראל בעליה בראשות נתן שרנסקי | 0.50% 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 1 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 | 2.00% | 4 | +0.8 |
What happened to these votes
4 people in Hamadya voted for עלה ירוק. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 2.00% here, 1.7 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.
203 voters out of 303 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.
Hamadya against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Kefar Blum · Bet HaShitta · Ma'oz Hayyim
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Kefar Blum | 349 |
| Bet HaShitta | 611 |
| Ma'oz Hayyim | 323 |
| Midreshet Ben Gurion | 318 |
| Rishpon | 457 |
| Na'an | 750 |
| Ma'anit | 329 |
| Kefar Szold | 309 |
10 elections in Hamadya
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 335 | 231 | 69.0% | −1.7 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 317 | 221 | 69.7% | +2.3 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 307 | 212 | 69.1% | −2.5 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 300 | 220 | 73.3% | +3.5 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 295 | 209 | 70.8% | +2.4 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 315 | 227 | 72.1% | −0.3 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 305 | 219 | 71.8% | +4.0 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 289 | 196 | 67.8% | +5.3 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 207 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 303 | 203 | 67.0% | +1.4 | 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.