Odem
How Odem voted in 2009
58 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| כן קדימה – עם ציפי לבני לראשות הממשלה | 46.55% 27 votes |
+24.1 |
| מחל הליכוד – אח"י בהנהגת בנימין נתניהו לראשות הממשלה | 17.24% 10 votes |
−4.4 |
| ל ישראל ביתנו בראשות אביגדור ליברמן | 13.79% 8 votes |
+2.1 |
| מרצ התנועה החדשה מרצ | 5.17% 3 votes |
+2.2 |
"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 | 10.34% | 6 | +9.5 |
| קנ | עלה ירוק | 5.17% | 3 | +4.8 |
| ץ | צומת - התנועה לציונות מתחדשת | 1.72% | 1 | +1.7 |
What happened to these votes
6 people in Odem voted for התנועה היירוקה מימד בראשות הרב מלכיאור וערן בן-ימיני. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 10.34% here, 12.6 times its national share. Nationally it stopped at 0.82%, 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.
58 voters out of 84 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.
Odem against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Sede Warburg · Mizra · Nir Dawid (Tel Amal)
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 15 times the number of valid votes).
| Sede Warburg | 593 |
| Mizra | 465 |
| Nir Dawid (Tel Amal) | 401 |
| Gan Hayyim | 391 |
| Bizzaron | 576 |
| Hazor-Ashdod | 423 |
| Rishpon | 588 |
| Shefayim | 617 |
10 elections in Odem
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 133 | 99 | 74.4% | +3.8 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 122 | 95 | 77.9% | +10.4 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 121 | 89 | 73.6% | +2.0 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 121 | 98 | 81.0% | +11.1 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 113 | 88 | 77.9% | +9.4 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 102 | 80 | 78.4% | +6.1 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 94 | 63 | 67.0% | −0.8 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 84 | 58 | 69.0% | +6.5 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 46 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 64 | 30 | 46.9% | −18.7 | 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.