Gelil Yam
How Gelil Yam voted in 2009
212 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| אמת העבודה בראשות אהוד ברק | 44.34% 94 votes |
+34.4 |
| כן קדימה – עם ציפי לבני לראשות הממשלה | 29.25% 62 votes |
+6.8 |
| מרצ התנועה החדשה מרצ | 10.85% 23 votes |
+7.9 |
| מחל הליכוד – אח"י בהנהגת בנימין נתניהו לראשות הממשלה | 7.08% 15 votes |
−14.5 |
| ל ישראל ביתנו בראשות אביגדור ליברמן | 4.25% 9 votes |
−7.5 |
| שס התאחדות הספרדים העולמית שומרי תורה | 1.42% 3 votes |
−7.1 |
| ו חד"ש החזית הדמוקרטית לשלום ושיוויון (המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית וחוגי ציבור ערבים ויהודים) | 0.47% 1 votes |
−2.9 |
"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 (2.0%), even where their share here was far larger.
| ה | התנועה היירוקה מימד בראשות הרב מלכיאור וערן בן-ימיני | 0.94% | 2 | +0.1 |
| רק | הירוקים – למען ישראל ירוקה | 0.94% | 2 | +0.6 |
| פי | ברית עולם למען ילדינו | 0.47% | 1 | +0.5 |
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.
213 voters out of 284 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.
Gelil Yam against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Allone Abba · En HaMifraz · Kefar Blum
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Allone Abba | 344 |
| En HaMifraz | 469 |
| Kefar Blum | 356 |
| Dorot | 314 |
| En Dor | 403 |
| En HaHoresh | 507 |
| Bet HaEmeq | 311 |
| Sha'ar HaAmaqim | 404 |
10 elections in Gelil Yam
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 362 | 279 | 77.1% | +6.4 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 353 | 276 | 78.2% | +10.7 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 352 | 275 | 78.1% | +6.6 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 348 | 264 | 75.9% | +6.0 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 346 | 273 | 78.9% | +10.4 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 318 | 271 | 85.2% | +12.9 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 309 | 246 | 79.6% | +11.8 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 284 | 213 | 75.0% | +12.5 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 209 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 255 | 181 | 71.0% | +5.4 | 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.