Why it's worth signing an excess vote agreement with a small party — and why it's risky?

An analysis of the political dynamics surrounding excess vote agreements in Israeli elections, focusing on the dilemma of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Otzma Yehudit, which remains the only party clearly passing the electoral threshold without an agreement. The article reviews the history of such agreements, their risks and benefits, and explains why it is advisable to sign with a smaller party, but also how this could taint a party as leftist or cause a loss of a seat.

The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the political dynamics surrounding excess vote agreements in Israeli elections, focusing on the current dilemma of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Otzma Yehudit. Otzma Yehudit is the only party clearly passing the electoral threshold that remains without an excess vote agreement, as Likud preferred to sign with Religious Zionism, while Yashar and the Democrats signed between themselves. The only remaining option for Ben-Gvir is to sign with the Amcha Israel list of Ofer Winter, who is his direct competitor. The article reviews a rich history of excess vote agreements in Israel, including cases where the agreement actually caused a loss of a seat, such as in the 1969 elections when Progress and Development lost a seat to the Free Center. The article explains the Bader-Ofer law, which favors large parties and ensures that an excess vote agreement cannot cause a party to lose a seat since its enactment. However, there is a risk of being tainted as leftist, as happened in 2013 when Shelly Yachimovich signed with Yesh Atid instead of Meretz, and in 2019 when Avigdor Lieberman signed with Blue and White. The article notes that the world is moving away from excess vote agreements, with France changing its system in 1958, the Netherlands abolishing the system in 2017 on the grounds that it was voter fraud, and Brazil abolishing it from the 2020 elections.