Yehi'am
How Yehi'am voted in 2003
269 valid votes.
| List | Share | Against national |
|---|---|---|
| מרצ מרצ - הבחירה הדמוקרטית - שחר | 55.39% 149 votes |
+50.2 |
| אמת העבודה - מימד בראשות מצנע | 25.28% 68 votes |
+10.8 |
| יש שינוי מפלגת החילונים ומעמד הביניים | 7.81% 21 votes |
−4.5 |
| מחל הליכוד עם אריאל שרון לראשות הממשלה | 4.09% 11 votes |
−25.3 |
| ל האיחוד הלאומי ישראל ביתנו - מולדת תקומה | 0.74% 2 votes |
−4.8 |
| ם עם אחד בראשות עמיר פרץ | 0.74% 2 votes |
−2.0 |
"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 | 5.58% | 15 | +4.4 |
| נ | ישראל אחרת כי נשבר מהפוליטיקאים | 0.37% | 1 | +0.1 |
What happened to these votes
15 people in Yehi'am voted for עלה ירוק. None of them elected anyone.
The list took 5.58% here, 4.6 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.
272 voters out of 389 eligible.
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.
Yehi'am against another locality, on the same axes and against the same national result.
For example: Kefar Szold · Ma'anit · Kefar Blum
The nearest localities on the map, among those of a similar size (within 5 times the number of valid votes).
| Kefar Szold | 309 |
| Ma'anit | 329 |
| Kefar Blum | 349 |
| Ma'oz Hayyim | 323 |
| Na'an | 750 |
| Moledet | 358 |
| Rishpon | 457 |
| Midreshet Ben Gurion | 318 |
10 elections in Yehi'am
| Knesset | Eligible | Voters | Turnout | Against national | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th 2022 | 615 | 401 | 65.2% | −5.4 | The results → |
| 24th 2021 | 571 | 396 | 69.4% | +1.9 | The results → |
| 23rd 2020 | 563 | 391 | 69.4% | −2.1 | The results → |
| 22nd 2019 | 553 | 370 | 66.9% | −3.0 | The results → |
| 21st 2019 | 553 | 484 | 87.5% | +19.1 | The results → |
| 20th 2015 | 466 | 325 | 69.7% | −2.6 | The results → |
| 19th 2013 | 386 | 279 | 72.3% | +4.5 | The results → |
| 18th 2009 | 376 | 258 | 68.6% | +6.1 | The results → |
| 17th 2006 | Not in source | 242 | Not in source | Not in source | The results → |
| 16th 2003 | 389 | 272 | 69.9% | +4.3 | 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.