Talk:2009 Israeli legislative election

Merger/move

1. Why was the discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Israeli_early_elections) closed in less than 24 hours? How can consensus be achieved like that. Most editors don't spend so much time online. 2. Can't we just make the move to the "18th Israeli legislative election" as that is what the election will be regardless of when it happens. For the time-being this can be redirected, eventually deleting this page and the other redirect. Lihaas (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It was closed as it was unnecessary - the article was a duplicate of an already existing one (i.e. this one). The title of this article is the standard for future election articles with an uncertain date - Next United Kingdom general election, Next Japanese general election, Next Maltese general election, Next Irish general election etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is not really a legislative election, as that term implies an American-style separation between executive and legislative branches. It might be perhaps more accurately termed a "parliamentary" election. I have set up a redirect to reflect that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested numbering as that is the standard used for Canadian election articles (e.g. 41st Canadian federal election, 39th Quebec general election). I doubt there's enough time between now and an election date announcement for a move to be worth the effort, but I hope this would be looked at in the future instead of the "next" nomenclature, which changes meaning every time a parliament is dissolved. Kelvinc (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's very difficult to get the numbers right in some cases. —Nightstallion 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just call it Elections to the 18th Knesset. That's what it is and that is what the Hebrew article is called! Happy138 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of another government

I just removed a sentence about the possibility of another government. I read in Yediot that there was no longer such a possibility and the election date was already set. However, now I realize that perhaps it was wrong to remove the sentence before finding a source disproving it. I'll look around Ynet later, but still believe that the sentence is no longer relevant. I will be happy to stand corrected if wrong. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Date is set already for Feb 10 - Heard it on London and Kirschenbaum the other day. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Election infobox

I have removed the election infobox for two reasons. The main reason is that in its current form it is a violation of WP:NPOV, as not only are not all parties included, the party listed as the third party actually came fourth in the last elections (I have removed the infobox from that article for the same reason) - and yes, the polls show Likud overtaking Shas, but some polls put Labor on the same number of seats as Shas or Yisrael Beiteinu - why are these not included?

This brings me to the second point; the infobox is already unsightly in its current form as it is too wide. Add another 10+ parties to it, and it will be ridiculously long as well. I think we can cover this info in a section on the list of parties running in the election (as was the case in the 2006 election article) without using the infobox.

What are others' thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the New Zealand general election, 2008 has the infobox with some of major parties (not all). I think we should restore the infobox, and if it became too long, we can remove minor parties that win small number of seats from the infobox after the election. This happened to the mentioned article as well (for example: when NZ First party did not win any seat (losing all of the seat in the previous parliament), they removed it from the infobox. I'll leave the ultimate decision to those who edited this article. I am not participating (I am just a spectator for this topic). w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the removal of the infobox. The infobox is bloated, and is inappropriate for a multi-party parliamentary system. The information in it is not easily accessible anymore than in the results table. It is misleading as it does not present the lesser parties (that actually have a pretty significant weight with 21 seats), and implies that Livni has won (Kadima may have gotten the greatest number of seats, but it is not too likely that Livni will be PM). Rami R 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the NPOV, but agree that the infobox is misproportionate. I might see it as a legitimate table later in the article, but then again, that might be more appropriate for newspaper articles, not an encyclopedia. Then again, I see this box is quite standard on all election articles. --Shuki (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them - I haven't used it in any of the 100+ election articles I've created for the reasons mentioned above. Unless you can include all parties in the template without making it bloated, it shouldn't be used. Number 57 10:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis to delete it on NPOV grounds. There are hundreds of electoral articles with infoboxes in parliamentary and non-parliamentary elections that include and dont include lesser parties. Take Dutch 2010 elections. Four parties arent listed. Swedish elections, 2010. Three arent listed. The infobox is a basic summary of the major happenings and provides a nice clear visual. It also makes the articles look more professional with a graphic summary. Further, what "you" do on "your" articles is not Wikipedia policy and doesnt apply here or anywhere. If someone adds an infobox to "your" articles, you can very well eat it in most cases. I am going to revert your edit. Please do not start a war over this. Its silly and unproductive. We can work to get a consensus or get arbitration on this, but you went and took unilateral action, which you had no basis for.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Election_infoboxes for helping to determine a formal consensus.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an error on the page, for some reason despite attempts at editing, Ehud Barak's party always shows up as Kadima on the infobox rather than Israeli Labor Party, though the editing page shows it as Israeli Labor Party, are there any suggestions as to how this can be resolved? Tsdek (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me when I view it normally. Number 57 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Right Wing Block and Left wing Block

See here

--85.250.243.74 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If a right wing party like shas or UTJ (both orthodox religious right) sees that the left block has already got a majority, like in this Knesset they have 63 (out 120) without "Shas" or "UTJ" - they might as well join the coalition government, not because they like it, but because the left already has a majority without them, and in order to balance the left block from going far left as well as preserving their budget interests.

Or right after elections, should the left block have something close to a majority like 57-59, and the rightwing block has like 40 (and the rest are non-affiliate), and the right wing block can never form a majority coalition government in the Knesset, and since elections were already held, they will give the left block the last majority vote and keep them away from going far-left.

Only should it be their "second choice", should parties like "Shas" and "UTJ" (orthodox religious right) would join the left-wing block. Otherwise, they work to support right-wing block.

Non-affiliate: All kind of One-subject parties, like "Green Party", or "Gil" (elderly people) is considered a left wing subject. However, a right or left in Israeli politics, is being determined on the way you think about the negotiations with neighboring Arab states and other such matters, which will eventually lead to the way you choose to side with in the Knesset - which all those "one subject parties" usually don't emphasize in their election season, and eventually on the "negotiating with the Arabs" subjects each of their member vote his own mind, and only on "Green" and "Elderly" subjects, do they vote together.

--85.250.243.74 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the table?

Party	Seats
	Current	Dahaf 27 Oct	Teleseker 27 Oct	Gal Hadash 30 Oct	Gal Hadash 13 Nov	Maagar Mohot 19 Nov	Dialog 20 Nov	Dahaf 20 Nov	Shvakim Panorama	Teleseker-Maariv December 19	Dialog 25 Dec	Maagar Mohot 25 Dec
Kadima	29	29	31	30	28	23	28	26	20	30	26	25
Labor Party	19	11	11	13	11	8	10	8	14	12	11	11
Meretz	5	6	5	5	7	10	7	7	6	7	8	6
United Arab List–Ta'al	4	10	11	10	10	9	11	11	9	10	8	9
Hadash	3
Balad	3
Bloc
	(63) Center-Left Bloc	56	58	58	56	50	56	52	49	59	53	51
Shas	12	11	8	10	10	13	10	11	12	9	13	12
Likud	12	26	29	31	33	34	34	32	34	30	30	31
Yisrael Beiteinu	11	9	11	8	7	10	10	9	11	12	11	13
Jewish Home	9	7	7	6	6	7	4	6	4	5	6	5
United Torah Judaism	6	7	4	5	5	5	6	7	7	5	5	5
Bloc
	(50) Right wing Bloc	60	59	60	61	69	64	65	68	61	65	66
Gil	7	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
The Greens	0	2	3	2	3	1	0	3	0	0	-	1
Social Justice	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	-	-	0

• There are 120 seats in the Knesset, which makes a majoriy 61 seats and above.

--89.139.95.239 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A definite no. It's OR to speculate what the coalitions will be before the elections are over, and especially OR to label Kadima as left-wing or Shas as right-wing, when both could be said to be the other (and Kadima are by definition a centrist party). Given that Labor, Shas and Likud have ended up in coalition in two of the last three governments, is it really sensible to separate them? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

even Likud and labor may end up in the same coalition-government (so called "Unity Government") that does not make them any different.

As I have explained parties affiliated with the right would work for a right wing coalition, however, if the situation does not let them have a right wing coalition, they would join an already existing left coalition, in order to preserve their budget interests and to keep the left bloc from "going far left". This is not a "speculation", read all Israeli newspapers how they make up the numbers I have laid in the above table here and here - for example.

and Kadima defines itself as "centrists", however, since they are running against the Likud, de-facto the pollsters count them with left-bloc, and also because the left people will always prefer to serve under Livni, for example and not under Netanyahu - read the papers and the links I have provided (And I took off the red color from them, and renamed the bloc as "Center-left bloc", as they are now referred by the pollsters.

Number 57, if someone who is not familiar with the system, is reading the current table in the article, he may not understand what is going on , since he just sees a bunch of numbers here and there and it is unclear where are the trends are leaning, changing etc.

I strongly suggest you would reconsider.

--89.139.95.239 (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that even those of us who are familiar with the system are not in the position to say who will go with who in the next government. If Likud wins, Netanyahu may prefer to ally with Kadima than Shas. Best to leave speculation out of the article. The only important number is that the party with the largest number of seats (i.e. which one is most likely to be asked to form the government), and the current format makes it quite clear which one that is. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If those of us who are familiar are not to say that, then pollsters shouldn't either, and polls shouldn't be published in the article at all, cause what is less known is how much each party will get eventually in the voting booth, rather then a more familiar fact that parties like UTJ identifies itself with the right, and would join a left coalition only as a "second choice", when a right wing coalition is not possible.

But what is more important, is the fact, that the number of seats (i.e. mandates) that each major party gets (Kadima, Likud) is not necessarily the determining factor of who is going to form the government, but rather how many other parties supports them, that will make all together 61 and above votes/seats.

This is what the pollsters are trying to determine as a "winner". For example if kadima and Likud are equal, currently the right wing block has more seats, and would make Netanyahu the PM, or even if he gets less then Kadima, although it will hurt his negotiation position, if his bloc all together has 61 seats and above he is the winner (this week the newspapers discussed Netanyahu loosing seats, but to right wing parties, so all together didn't hurt his chances: "Likud looses six seats in two weeks").

Another example is Menachem Begin, who won in 1977 year - 48 seats as a record number, so how people called him "the winner" - if his party didn't have 61 ? They determined it by his right wing bloc - and this what unclear in the article.

--89.139.95.239 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, a "Bloc" is not a "coalition". People use the term "Bloc" during election season, to refer to those who either are identified with the right or left bloc - to eventually make up a potential "coalition", based on their ideology.

--89.139.95.239 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Polls

there have been some polls that show much change in the race. how come nobody has put them up?Ericl (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Laziness? If you know of any reliable polls, be bold and add them. Or mention them here, and perhaps someone else will add them. Rami R 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw someone tried to modify the "Current" category to have factual numbers, but it was revoked and marked "Vandalism". Funny how the "Current" category lists Likud dropping from 32 to 12; JPost and other sources list nothing of the sort, and when factual information is added it's removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.115.130 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because "Current" is the current number of seats in the Knesset, not what the latest poll says. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Rami R, with additional comments

Hello. I am hoping we can come to a consensus as how to best expand and reform the Opinion Polls table on the Israeli legislative election, 2009 page. I am also hoping you can explain the comment "rv: serious WP:SYNTH issues and use of questionable sources (e.g. bhirot2009.co.il))"

I spent considerable effort finding over 80 polls for this and sourcing this as best I could. While I understand some polls have better sources than others, I definitely don't understand a WP:SYNTH argument. There are no claims made in the table, just raw data. And I did not include only some polls as opposed to others; I included every one, most with 2-4 sources. Thanks, --Allstar86 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is probably better discussed on the article talk page, but whatever. I appreciate the work you've put into this, but we do not really need to include every poll in existence. We shouldn't include polls that don't have good sources, polls that give incomplete results, and polls that give impossible results (e.g. a single seat for a party).

Example of specific issues I found:

Date	Media	Pollster	Kadima	Labor	Shas	Likud	Yisrael Beiteinu	UAL-T /Hadash /Balad	Jewish Home /National Union	Gil	UTJ	Meretz	Greens	Other	Sources
Jan 7, 2009	Channel 10	Dialog	27	16	11	31	10	10	0/3	0	5	7	0		Nana10, Bhirot
Jan 7, 2009	Radius Radio 100FM	Geocartography	27	12	7	33	11	10	5/3	0	4	6	2		Bhirot
Jan 1, 2009	Haaretz	Dialog	27	16	9	32	11	4/4/2	3/0	0	5	7	0		Bhirot, INN, IMRA, Reuters

• First poll: channel 10 reported UAL-Ta'al and Hadash receiving 3 seats each and nothing about Balad. Yet bhirot2009.co.il reports the Arab parties receiving 10 seats in the poll. Where exactly did they get this number?
• The second poll has only bhirot2009 as a source, and we just saw how reliable they are.
• In the third poll you give the results as 4/4/2 for the Arab parties, yet in a footnote state that Reuters reports them getting 8. So which is it? This is an Haaretz poll. Haaretz has online editions both in English and Hebrew, with mostly free archives. Why isn't Haaretz sourced directly?

I also have some minor formating reservations, such as having different parties lumped together (UAL-Ta'al/Hadash/Balad and NU/JH) and listing the polls in descending order, but these really are minor points. Rami R 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; it was exceptionally helpful. I've thoroughly edited and now reestablished the big table now on its own page - Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2009. Now, in re to your comments:

• I would submit it is absolutely better to include each poll rather than a select few as has been done in the table on this page. Having a select few makes it ripe for bias, as one party may be shown in a better or worse position than if the complete picture of all the polls were shown.
  • Further, I would say there is some precedent in putting every poll available, as in Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008/Archive, Opinion polling by state for the United States presidential election, 2008 (California) etc.
• I do however understand that the table I made is very large, and thus I would think that perhaps showing just the most recent polls in the last 5 days or so would be a good compromise for the main page, with a link to the larger table.
• The only poll in the big table with incomplete results is the Channel 1 poll of October 28, 2008 (sourced by Reuters), but I believe Reuters is a good source and that the data should be included, even though there is no reporting of the smaller parties.
• Surveys that poll a single seat for a party are nevertheless valid, even though that party would not be seated. However, I do think it's worth noting, so I put a note at the top that says "Israeli law requires a 2% threshold (yielding a minimum of two seats) for a party to be seated in the Knesset. Therefore, surveys that poll only one seat for a party reveal limited support that would not actually result in their seating."
• For the first poll in the table of 3 suspect polls you created above, thanks for finding that. This is the only occasion I have found where Bhirot was in error, but it is now noted.
• I nevertheless believe Bhirot is a very good poll aggregator site. While better sources would be preferable, I have nevertheless found it quite accurate and fantastically easier to read polls in a standardized format. It, like IMRA, INN, and Reuters, appear to make 1 error out of a 100, and that is why it is worth cross-checking and noting. I don't think having only one of these sites as a source is grounds for its removal from a table.
• In the third poll, every source indicates the Arab parties add up to 10 (from 4/4/2), so I believe Reuters is in error and have noted the contradiction as above. I have unfortunately have not been able to find this at the Haaretz website (and would point out this very poll appears on this page, similarly with only a secondary source). If you or anyone else can find it at the Haaretz, that would be most welcome.
• I have changed the formatting to separate the parties. Unfortunately, this means they cannot be sorted anymore, but I believe it is still better. I have also made notes to explain the occasional grouping of the Arab parties and UTJ/JH.
• I appreciate you've now changed this table so the polls are now listed as rows instead of columns. But I do believe it is better (and have only ever seen) polls listed in descending order, so that the most recent and visible polls are most accessible at the top.

• Moving forward.. I hope we can come to better agreement about this, and make similar the table on this page and the larger one on the secondary page. I am always open to further discussion, but I certainly hope we can come a long way from deleting the entire table en masse. --Allstar86 (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have Ta'al and Balad Appealed to the High Court?

Have Ta'al and Balad appealed against the ban, and if so, what were the consequences? If not, might they still do so? CuriousOliver (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They did, but it takes time. Updates will come as details become known. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The ban has been revoked. The article has been updated accordingly. Rami R 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Landscape

It would be good if there was an indication where each party roughly stands, since the political landscape must be extremely confusing to any one not familiar with Israeli parties, with such a large number of parties and changes. Parties could be ranged from very right to center to very left, from religious to secular, and from Jewish to Arab. CuriousOliver (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is often no agreement as to where in the political spectrum any given party stands. Additionally, some parties focus more on the security issues, others on economic issues, and smaller parties often have their own particular agenda. This makes it very difficult to make a blanket classification. Usually parties in Israel are classified as one of the following: left wing, right wing, center (sometimes), religious, and Arab. I can provide a source for this, but am personally opposed to such a classification, and I'm sure that many other Wikipedians would be as well. We've also had a similar discussion on the issue on this page in the past. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When do polls close?

Any one knows when polls will close? CuriousOliver (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

10:00. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

it is closed now. [4] w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Olmert resigned as PM?

If Olmert resigned; why is he still Prime Minister? GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, he is caretaker now (just like thaksin was - but he decided to return to power - correct me if I am wrong).w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

'Tis confusing, the way it's done in Israel. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into speculation of personal motivations for not immediately stepping down after announcing his resignation (like keeping parliamentary immunity against multiple open police investigations of corruption), Olmert chose to stay PM until someone can form a majority coalition (basically ensuring they won't fail on a non-confidence vote in the nearest future.) --Shuki (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Olmert didn't choose to do so - it is the law. A Prime Minister leaves office only after a new Prime Minister is sworn in. Since Livni failed in forming a government a few months ago - Olmert remained in office. The only instance in which a Prime Minister can leave office before a new one is sworn in - is if he is unable to perform his duties (as Ariel Sharon was in January 2006) or if he dies. He could have gone on vacation (like Rabin did in 1977) - but chose not to. The Attorney General could have also declared him unable to perform his duties, due to the investigations - but he too chose not to do so. By the way, Olmert is now the first Israeli Prime Minister, who is not a member of the Knesset, since his term expired this week and he will leave office only once a new PM is sworn in. Happy138 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that Sharon left the office before his successor is sworn. I believe his successor was acting PM (acting on behalf of sharon) until sworn in. In the event of Prime Minister death, his/her deputy will act on the deceased's behalf until the successor is elected/confirmed by the parliament and sworn in. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I know. In US, they have succession line (like in monarchy) see - United States presidential line of succession, of which in case the president died, vice president automatically took his/her place as president, unlike countries with PM. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate. Olmert was indeed the caretaker minister when Sharon fell into a comma, but he was officially declared PM 100 days after the comma (actually slightly more because of Passover), according to Israeli law. While this happenned to be the time he was forming the government right after elections, it didn't actually have anything to do with the elections. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think w.tanoto-soegiri describes it better than I did. Happy138 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Move the Opinion Poll table

Just wondering, it might be a good idea to move the whole Opinion Poll table into its own article to make way for the actual results. Maybe a graph (if it isn't too complicated). You can use this as a model [5] w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A graph should be made, but I don't think it should have its own article. There is no WP:SIZE concern in this article, and I can't see another reason why it should be split. Aesthetics aren't a good enough reason, and if it's really important, we can put them in a collapsible box. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a dedicated article, Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2009. What I don't understand is why putting the table in this article instead of putting it to the article. The UK next election have one (Opinion polling in the next United Kingdom general election), New Zealand has one. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a big deal, but if an AfD comes up for the opinion polls article, I will suggest merging. Splitting recent election articles into opinion poll articles is a perfect example of recentism, and while it many be interesting to most of the public, I don't see why another article needs to be created. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a collapsible box would be best. --Zvika (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why Likud is losing while all the polls showed them ahead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.28.221 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Polls in Israel are notoriously inaccurate; see the case of Israeli prime ministerial election, 1996. --Zvika (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

problem with ref tags?

The final ref tag appears incorrectly when viewed in Firefox 3.0.6 but seems OK in IE. Does anybody else see this? Any idea how to solve this? --Zvika (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See here for an update. In the meantime, the addition of new ref tags seems to have made the problem go away. --Zvika (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

result

hi. I added a paragraph on the results. well, nobody said this would be easy. I tried to stick to what would seem objective. I think a basic summary of the political considerations is appropriate, even though nebulous situations like this are sometimes hard to summarize in an encyclopedic manner. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with keeping the sentence about the feb 18th date in the entry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

article traffic

hi. this jump has got to be some kind of record for largest one-day increase in article traffic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a record, but it's pretty impressive. Let's just keep the article in good shape at least until the interest passes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Absentee Ballots

According to all websites re Israeli 2009 election (including official webpages), so far as I can tell, the complete figures are those that are given. Are you able to verify that the absentee figures are not included in the total figures? If so, then please do so. Secondly, standard practice for reproducing election results is to give total votes and percentages, as I have tried to do. (If in doubt, see other wiki election pages)--Mrodowicz (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The total votes include the absentee ballots. I'm not sure what would make you assume otherwise. This is no reason to remove them. I will restore the column if there are no objections. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The absentee ballots are included. See here. -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Data Error

The vote totals appear to be in error. They don't match those given on the linked reference, and if one applies the D'Hondt method (with the threshold applied) to allocate seats to the vote totals in the article. you get different values than what is given in the article. Carolina wren (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes all the vote totals and percentages for all parties are wrong. Someone initially contributed the absentee vote totals (which were already included in the total). Then someone else came along and added the two columns together, thus messing up both the totals and the percentages --Mrodowicz (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Results

I have imputed the official results from the Knesset Board of Elections (link). Please check if I have made any mistakes with the party names, but otherwise I think this is all correct. – Zntrip 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The percentages still aren't right. The most accessible site for election results is Hebrew Wiki (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%94). It appears to agree with the Knesset site, except that the percentage totals are given to two decimal places rather than one. --Mrodowicz (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it up now. Hopefully all is correct. --Mrodowicz (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, the problem was that invalid votes should not have been factored in with the percentages. I added a "valid votes" row so it makes sense. – Zntrip 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

reaction lsits

we need some of the reactions to the election because there were notable ones from not just Hamas but the neigbourhood, including a positive-ish one.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

B class

To get B class, this will need a better organization of itself and of its pictures.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Israeli legislative election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090217123139/http://www.angus-reid.com:80/polls/view/32419/support_for_likud_soars_before_israeli_ballot to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32419/support_for_likud_soars_before_israeli_ballot
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205114059/http://www.politico.co.il:80/article.asp?rId=1135 to http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1135
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207044148/http://www.politico.co.il:80/article.asp?rId=1176 to http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1176
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208155236/http://www.politico.co.il:80/article.asp?rId=1218 to http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1218

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Israeli legislative election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203071519/http://www.politico.co.il:80/article.asp?rId=1042 to http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1042
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208155231/http://www.politico.co.il:80/article.asp?rId=1235 to http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1235
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090402151516/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/World/Netanyahu-government-to-be-sworn-in-on-March-31-/articleshow/4328872.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Netanyahu-government-to-be-sworn-in-on-March-31-/articleshow/4328872.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)