Who Needs an App?
The decision by the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Judge Noam Sohlberg, to ban party representatives from reporting in real-time apps who has voted, raises questions among the opposition. The author argues that the decision, though substantively justified, actually harms the decentralized opposition parties, such as the Democrats with 112,000 members, while the coalition has alternatives like physical monitoring and cohesive communities. He recommends that the opposition fight against the decision.
The decision by the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Judge Noam Sohlberg, to ban party representatives at polling stations from reporting in real-time apps who has already voted, is anchored in democratic principles, as the secrecy of the ballot is meant to protect the very decision of whether to vote. However, the author, Yuval Albashan, argues that the opposition's joy over the decision is puzzling, as it may actually harm it. Coalition parties, such as Likud, the Haredim, and the religious parties, rely on alternatives like physical monitoring centers and cohesive communities, while the opposition parties, which are more decentralized, such as the Democrats with 112,000 members, lose the ability to know which of their supporters have not voted. In addition, the Haredim and religious have clear external characteristics that allow monitoring outside the polling station. The author suggests that it is the opposition, not the coalition, that should fight against the decision, since elections are won with organization, not ideology.