Enav
How Enav voted in 2006
264 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| טב איחוד לאומי - מפד"ל רשימה יהודית לאומית מאוחדת | 52.27% 138 votes |
+45.1 |
| שס התאחדות הספרדים העולמית שומרי תורה | 22.35% 59 votes |
+12.8 |
| ל ישראל ביתנו בראשות אביגדור ליברמן | 5.68% 15 votes |
−3.3 |
| מחל הליכוד עם בנימין נתניהו לראשות הממשלה | 5.68% 15 votes |
−3.3 |
| כן קדימה – עם אהוד אולמרט לראשות הממשלה | 3.41% 9 votes |
−18.6 |
| זך גימלאי ישראל לכנסת | 2.27% 6 votes |
−3.6 |
"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 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.
| כ | חזית יהודית לאומית בראשות ברוך מרזל | 7.58% | 20 | +6.8 |
| זה | עתיד אחד - עתיד טוב לישראל | 0.38% | 1 | −0.1 |
| קנ | עלה ירוק | 0.38% | 1 | −0.9 |
What happened to these votes
20 people in Enav voted for חזית יהודית לאומית בראשות ברוך מרזל. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 7.58% here, 9.6 times its national share. Nationally it stopped at 0.79%, below the 2.0% 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.
The Central Elections Committee published no count of eligible voters by locality for this election, so there is no turnout. It is not calculated or estimated: it is simply missing.
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.
Enav against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
10 elections in Enav
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 560 | 459 | 82.0% | +11.3 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 517 | 433 | 83.8% | +16.3 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 505 | 429 | 85.0% | +13.4 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 500 | 421 | 84.2% | +14.3 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 490 | 414 | 84.5% | +16.0 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 429 | 360 | 83.9% | +11.6 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 434 | 358 | 82.5% | +14.7 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 362 | 278 | 76.8% | +14.3 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 267 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 294 | 226 | 76.9% | +11.3 | 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.