Change the System of Elections to the Knesset!

Here is the Haaretz Editorial from Thursday 4th January 2007.
I agree with this but ask what is the difference in having 17 constituencies instead of what I prefer 60?
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
Last update - 10:48 04/01/2007

Propitious time for change


By Haaretz Editorial

The presidential commission examining the method of government in
Israel, headed by Prof. Menachem Magidor, has carried out comprehensive
and impressive work. Its most important reccommendation is without a
doubt about what not to do: not to move over to a presidential system,
but on the contrary, to strengthen the parliamentary one.

Over the last few years, the public debate in Israel has tended to
reject the existing system, preferring revolutions instead. But the
majority of the 73 experts who participated in the Magidor commission
maintain that a presidential system is not suitable for the Israel of
today and that the parliamentary system, with all its faults, was and
remains the preferred option. The commission's message is clear: Those
who want to copy the presidential type of government from the United
States must first copy America's rigid constitution and political culture.

The Magidor commission issues recommendations that aim to make the
parliamentary system more efficient to strengthen voter confidence in
the government. Its suggestions include changing the electoral system to
make half of it based on regional representation, raising the electoral
threshold to 2.5 percent, requiring a two-year budget instead of an
annual one, and passing a law that would prevent a fraudulent party census.

President Moshe Katsav is the first president to appoint a public
commission, and he did so in connection with a very important subject.
For this, his initiative should be welcomed, and the pall hovering over
the president due to the criminal allegations against him should not
affect the attitude toward the report. The Magidor report must not be
buried in a drawer like so many other commission findings.

The suggested electoral reforms would harm small parties, but there is
no choice because only in this way will the country be able to have a
stable and more representative political and parliamentary structure.
Historic movements and factions, no matter how unique, will have to find
some way to unite. This necessary process will apparently require
additional time to become accepted in the political world, and will
involve bitter disputes. However, the recommendations dealing with the
Knesset and the government can and must be implemented without delay.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who put the issue on the national agenda,
must now lead the Knesset in adopting the commission's recommendations.
For instance, laws that limit the number of ministers to 18 and require
confirmation hearings for ministers should be passed as soon as
possible. The recommendation that a no-confidence motion should require
submission of a proposed alternative government should also be
considered. This would change a no-confidence motion from a weekly
nuisance to an unusual and significant parliamentary proceeding.

The Knesset would do well to pay a lot of attention to the
recommendations dealing with improving its functioning by decreasing the
number of committees and the number of MKs in each committee. The MKs
should also seriously consider the suggestion to increase the number of
workdays from three a week to four. Even if it seems to them that they
work fairly hard, the public appears to think otherwise. These
recommendations could improve the image of the Knesset and the public
confidence in it.

This is a propitious time and a time of goodwill in the political
system, and it is understood that the method of government must be
changed. The Knesset now faces an important test: Will it take advantage
of the opportunity to improve the system of government, or will it miss
the opportunity?