Migdal Oz
How Migdal Oz voted in 2022
167 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| ט Religious Zionist Party | 44.31% 74 votes |
+33.5 |
| מחל Likud | 20.36% 34 votes |
−3.0 |
| כן National Unity | 6.59% 11 votes |
−2.5 |
| ג United Torah Judaism | 1.80% 3 votes |
−4.1 |
| פה Yesh Atid | 1.80% 3 votes |
−16.0 |
| שס Shas | 0.60% 1 votes |
−7.6 |
"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 (3.25%), even where their share here was far larger.
| ב | הבית היהודי בראשות איילת שקד | 23.95% | 40 | +22.8 |
| מרצ | מרצ השמאל של ישראל בראשות זהבה גלאון | 0.60% | 1 | −2.6 |
What happened to these votes
40 people in Migdal Oz voted for הבית היהודי בראשות איילת שקד. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 23.95% here, 20.1 times its national share. Nationally it stopped at 1.19%, below the 3.25% 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.
167 voters out of 266 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.
Migdal Oz against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Nir Gallim · Pattish · Suseya
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Nir Gallim | 522 |
| Pattish | 576 |
| Suseya | 596 |
| Ahihud | 540 |
| Kefar Zetim | 351 |
| Rewaha | 360 |
| Kefar Pines | 312 |
| Menuha | 366 |
10 elections in Migdal Oz
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 266 | 167 | 62.8% | −7.8 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 267 | 167 | 62.5% | −4.9 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 259 | 164 | 63.3% | −8.2 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 256 | 166 | 64.8% | −5.0 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 250 | 173 | 69.2% | +0.7 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 240 | 173 | 72.1% | −0.3 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 252 | 178 | 70.6% | +2.9 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 226 | 160 | 70.8% | +8.3 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 167 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 159 | 117 | 73.6% | +8.0 | 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.