Almog
How Almog voted in 2003
49 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| אמת העבודה - מימד בראשות מצנע | 36.73% 18 votes |
+22.3 |
| מחל הליכוד עם אריאל שרון לראשות הממשלה | 22.45% 11 votes |
−6.9 |
| יש שינוי מפלגת החילונים ומעמד הביניים | 12.24% 6 votes |
−0.0 |
| ם עם אחד בראשות עמיר פרץ | 10.20% 5 votes |
+7.4 |
| מרצ מרצ - הבחירה הדמוקרטית - שחר | 10.20% 5 votes |
+5.0 |
| ל האיחוד הלאומי ישראל ביתנו - מולדת תקומה | 2.04% 1 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 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 | 4.08% | 2 | +2.9 |
| רק | הירוקים | 2.04% | 1 | +1.6 |
What happened to these votes
2 people in Almog voted for עלה ירוק. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 4.08% here, 3.4 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.
49 voters out of 76 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.
Almog against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Ma'anit · Kefar Szold · Kefar Blum
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 15 times the number of valid votes).
| Ma'anit | 329 |
| Kefar Szold | 309 |
| Kefar Blum | 349 |
| Ma'oz Hayyim | 323 |
| Rishpon | 457 |
| Bet HaShitta | 611 |
| Midreshet Ben Gurion | 318 |
| Moledet | 358 |
10 elections in Almog
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 195 | 111 | 56.9% | −13.7 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 189 | 125 | 66.1% | −1.3 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 193 | 135 | 69.9% | −1.6 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 198 | 128 | 64.6% | −5.2 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 194 | 136 | 70.1% | +1.6 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 145 | 105 | 72.4% | +0.1 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 140 | 104 | 74.3% | +6.5 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 118 | 94 | 79.7% | +17.2 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 63 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 76 | 49 | 64.5% | −1.1 | 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.