Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 Israeli legislative election

Kahlon

The most recent poll entry included Kahlon among the "Right-religious", though most others appear to include him on the "centre-left" bloc. Until recently, all the entries included Kahlon among the "Right-religious" bloc. It's difficult to fit him into a particular category. Kahlon was a member of Likud until recently. Perhaps we should have some discussion as to where he fits best. For now, I'll shift him to the "centre-left" bloc in the most recent entry for the sake of consistency.

Lip pike (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Though, didn't Kahlon's party sign an agreement with Yisrael Beitenu? Wouldn't that put them closer to the right? Bkissin (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Either he should be in the right-religious bloc, or he shouldn't be in either. Some small supporting evidence can be found in this article, which implies that Kahlon's voter base is similar to that of the Likud (which should not come as a surprise). Kimpire (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kahlon's party should stay listed as right-religious. He is a former Likudnik, most of his voter base will likely come from Likud, Shas, and centrist voters, and he self identified last week as slightly right of center. Not to mention his surplus vote agreement with Lieberman. Switching him from right religious to center-left recently is also confusing and skews the polling, which until the last few days always put him in right-religious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.170.27 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestions above - Kahlon is self-described as "center, a little right", see http://www.timesofisrael.com/rising-star-kahlon-says-he-would-give-land-for-peace/ hence I would suggest moving his party back to the center-left block. Moreover, as the original source, Jeremy's Knesset insider seemed to suggest, the center-left and right-religious blocks are defined as those against Binyamin Netanyahu and those in support. Given this split from Likud - it would seem that he is opposition to Netanyahu. If you agree Lip pike, please update the page. Blewis123 (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We, i.e. Wikipedia, have no right to decide for ourselves where to put Kahlon. If we include the bloc numbers, they must reflect that used in Israeli political discourse, whether we agree with them or not. Kimpire (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli political discourse indicates Kahlon is center-right but certainly left of the Likud at this point. That said, I think the idea of the blocs is past its fresh date. Clearly, whoever wins this election is going to have to form a coalition that includes a broad center.Aemathisphd (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Centre-left & Right-religious

Exactly which parties are Centre-left and which parties are Right-religious? I'm not entirely sure where some parties fit in. Could someone help me out? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right-religious are Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Jewish Home, Shas, UTJ, and Otzma. Centre-left are Yesh Atid, Labor, Meretz, Hatnuah, Hadash, UAL-Ta'al, Balad, and Kadima.

Kulanu was listed as Right-religious until this past week when they were switched to centre-left, a switch I strongly disagree with. Their party founder and head himself last week self identified as slightly right of center.

Also, the listing itself is misleading, as Hadash, UAL-Ta'al, and Balad are Arab parties, and though correctly identified as left, Arab parties have never been part of any coalition in Israel, right of left, so their inclusion in the centre-left bloc is not an indicator of potential coalition forming post election. If the left were to form a coalition, it would be via getting some moderate right parties (like Yisrael Beitenu and Kulanu) or religious parties (Shas and UTJ) to sign on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.170.27 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I will note that the Arab parties are traditionally added to the left-wing bloc in newspaper pie charts. 79.177.209.207 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Current format is confusing and misleading. Instead of two categories, it would be best presented as 5 categories: Left (Labor/Hatnuah/Meretz), Center (Yesh Atid/Kulanu/Beitanu), Right (Likud/Jewish Home/Otzma), Religious(Shas/UTJ/Haam Itanu), and Arab. 71.196.163.215 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hatnuah-Labor merger

I assume the current ordering of the parties in the table is according to descending number of seats, with a grandfathered exception made for Yisrael Beiteinu because it was part of the Likud when the table was created.

Now that Labor and Hatnuah have been merged and future polls will presumably keep them together, might it be a good idea to move the Hatnuah column over to next to Labor? It'd be a lot of work, of course, and somebody would need to double-check that I didn't mess anything up, but I don't have a problem doing it myself. I just don't want to rearrange the current order without asking first.

(Also, do we want to prune year-old polls from this table?) Kimpire (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The way that the table is organized reflects the party's performance in 2013. (With Yisrael Beiteinu with its individual polling numbers now that it and the Likud are separate). I like the way it is being done right now with Labor and Hatnuah, however another good way would be to combine the two columns into a Labor/Hatnuah column to reflect the merger, much like we did for Likud Beitenu. As for older polls, I say keep them, so that we are able chart progress and changes in vote preference over time. In order to reflect the merger, perhaps we split older polls (pre-election polls or maybe per year) and have all polls post merger reflect the change. Bkissin (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the Hatnuah column to next to Labor and merged the columns as appropriate. (Be Bold!) Somebody review it please to make sure I didn't mess anything up? In particular make sure that I took the Hatnuah results from each column and moved them over, instead of accidentally taking Meretz or Hadash's results on either side of it. Kimpire (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of "center-left" and "right-religious"

The two columns with center-left and right-religious are a bit problematic. There are some parties that fit perfectly well in one column or the other, but some parties are hard to say. And who makes the call? If it's us, it violates WP:OR. We're not allowed to classify a party one way or the other. In addition, the point of the column is not clear to me. I guess it's inspired by opinion polling for elections in some other countries where there really are two clear blocks, and the block that wins will form the government. That's not the case in Israel. Virtually every Israeli government has been a mix of some parties called center-left and some called right-religious. Does anyone seriously expect that if the so-called center left column gets a majority, then Herzog would form a government with Balad and Ta'al? Or does anyone think Netanyahu is very keen on a 'right-religious' government where every party in government would be more religious than Likud? In short If it's not clear which parties are center-left and right-religious, and if neither of these 'blocks' is likely to form the next government, then the point of having the two columns is not clear.Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Should those two columns be removed from the table? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost every poll I've ever seen printed in a newspaper publishes, alongside the parties' individual results, those two blocs. That isn't to say it necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia, but it at least doesn't violate WP:OR. Kulanu's position in the blocs, if the columns are retained, should reflect that used by the poll publishers. Kimpire (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The columns are incredibly problematic and should be eliminated, for exactly the reasons David said. Many parties are not firmly characterized as one or the other. This is especially true of brand-new parties like Kulanu. And, as David mentions, the Arab parties are a third thing altogether (not truly part of the left, and certainly not the right), and (I think) have never formed a coalition. Even some parties that are considered right-wing or religious (e.g., Avigdor Lieberman) have said that they might join a coalition with Labor. (The reverse is also true - center-left parties could join with right-wing ones).

In sum, Israeli politics is so fluid that it is pointless, problematic, and misleading to delineate a left-right count. Neutrality^talk 20:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The point of listing the bloc scores (even in newspapers) is not to predict in advance which parties will be in the coalition. It's to give an indication of which side is more likely to form the basis of that coalition, and what the policies of the coalition will be. If the right-religious bloc is scoring higher than the center-left bloc, Netanyahu will probably get first crack at trying to wrangle enough parties together to reach 61. If the center-left bloc scores higher, it will likely be Herzog. This is the case even if the central party of said bloc is actually smaller than the central party of the other bloc (see, for instance, what happened in 2009). Similarly, the right-religious bloc won the 2013 elections and therefore its central party formed the government - but three out of the five parties in the founding coalition were from the left-center bloc.

I'm not speaking towards whether or not it should be included on this page, of course; I'm just explaining the rationale behind it. It doesn't tell you what the coalition will look like - it tells you if it's the Likud or Labor that will provide the next prime minister. Kimpire (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, although the simple number of seats predicted for Labor and Likud might be at least a good predictor of which party provide the next PM. Historically, the highest vote-getting party will have the first chance to form a coalition, correct? Neutrality^talk 22:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope; Netanyahu himself has thrice been prime minister without being head of the largest party. Kimpire (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but that in itself is a bit misleading. Bibi was Prime Minister in 96 despite not having the most seats as Israel was then in its short lived experiment of having separate and direct elections for Prime Minister, regardless of Knesset representation, and in 2013, Bibi's joint Likud Beytneu and its 31 seats far outnumbered Lapid's 19. The fact that Bibi is leaving with only 18 seats is due to the oddity of Yisrael Beytenu separating from Likud, and 2 Likudniks resigning mid-term and their replacements being those from Yisrael Beytenu. I think Bibi 2009 is the only time in Israel's history where PM was determined by coalition building, and someone with less seats (likud's 27 vs. Kadima's 28) got to fully build the coalition themself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.116 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While it's true that 2009 was the only time in Israel's history that the head of the largest party was selected by the president to form the coalition, it's almost certain to happen a lot more. The paradigm has changed - the short-lived experiment with direct elections for the prime minister irreversibly altered a lot of voters' voting patterns. No longer do the two largest parties have 40 seats each and have to scrounge up 20; now the largest party rarely even reaches 30, and coalition building works completely differently. I therefore don't consider 2013 all that much of an exception; you still have a candidate for prime minister who is surrounded in the coalition by several other parties pretty much equal to his in size.

I believe the bloc numbers confer legitimacy in the eyes of the public as to which "side" won the elections, which in turn affects who the parties will recommend be prime minister, which in turn affects who the president selects for first attempt at the job.

Now, obviously the previous paragraphs are my personal opinion and a bit of WP:OR-style political analysis. So they don't belong in an article. But the fact remains that newspapers do print the bloc results. There must be a reason for it, even if not everyone agrees that my proposed reason is the correct one. So the information is neither WP:OR nor meaningless. Whether it belongs in Wikipedia or not is a question on which I have not yet fully formed an opinion, but I lean to yes, as it lets me tell at a glance how well the two sides are doing without having to do a lot of coalition-building math in my head. Kimpire (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

These problems could be easily solved if someone just split the charts in 4 instead of 2, as their are 4 clear political affiliations in Israel. Newspapers don't do this as each newspaper has its own agenda and manipulation it wants to foment by breaking it into "left-center" and "right-religious". The four would be Zionist Right, Zionist Left, Charedi, and Arab (the first two seeing Israeli independence day as a holiday, and the latter two being either neutral or hostile to it). The center stuff is nonsense, as parties on both right and left try to portray themselves as centrist. It is just some are "right leaning" and some are "left leaning." Charedi parties like Shas and UTJ rarely care about standard right-left issues and will join coalitions based on who they get along with. (They happen to get along with Bibi and hate Lapid). And of course, Arab parties never join the coalition. The only question left would be Yishai's new party, as he seems to be both legitimately Haredi and Right. Though if he combines with Tekuma, he clearly belongs in the right camp, and according to http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/politics-and-military/politics/eli-yishai-10193 Yishai said he will only join a Netanyahu coaltion, which makes him clearly right as well. Right leaning is Likud, Habayit HaYehudi, (Tekuma if they break off), Kulanu, Yisrael Beytenu, and Otzma (if they make polls). Left leaning is Labor-HaTnuah, Yesh Atid, Meretz, Kadima if they are around. Arab is Ual-Taal, Balad, and Hadash. Haredi is Shas and UTJ.24.186.248.116 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with your analysis, it's still WP:OR. Kimpire (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So I guess we should be bugging the papers and official news sites to break it up into 4. Fat chance of that suceeding any time soon :-)24.186.248.116 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've found one source that lumps the Haredi parties with the right[1] and one that doesn't.[2] Both sources btw place Kahlon in the political center. Given the inconsistency of definitions, and the unclear implications of said blocs, I endorse removing them from the table. Rami R 10:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This argument renders the page meaningless to all but those well versed in Israeli politics. It seems to me as if political squabbles are getting in the way of the page's true intent which is to pass meaning on to others in the best way it can. The bottom line isn't your particular preference but accepting that Kadima failed two elections ago to create a government with the largest party because these blocks are ideological and exist in fact. If the Labour / Livni partnership wins this time it will perhaps face similar if not greater difficulty. These columns accurately describe an issue that effects both the elections and the outcome. It's removal renders the entire page worthless but for the select few who have the grounding necessary to be reading it in Hebrew anyway. I don't care whether it is left/centre oe centre/right or both...But if you want to make the page make sense put them in. If I were to suggest, I'd go centre/right because it carries the greatest accuracy and you do not need to begin doing headstands to place Kulanu and esp Yisrael Beytenu with the Arab Israeli parties - that makes a complete mockery of it all. It might help you sleep better at night, but it wont help come the time the winner will begin building the coalition - and that is what needs to be represented on this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.116.130 (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, Jeppiz makes a good point below. Find me a newspaper clipping or website that indicates the size of the right and left blocs, from which simple math can be used to prove which parties are in which bloc, and we can restore those columns. Until then, its WP:OR. Kimpire (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I am not well versed in the Wiki edits or the TOS and stumbled into this blindly. I have read most of the comments here now and apologise for my intrusion. Different posters are placing parties to the left centre or right centre according to their own personal affiliation which makes any categorization that is made here, what you call 'OR'. It is a shame because it does provide light on what is in effect a complicated subject for those who do not understand the way Israeli politics works, however I now understand and agree with the removal entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.116.130 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright. No harm done. Sign up and contribute :) Kimpire (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please respect WP:RS

Around the ten latest opinion polls here all go back to the same source, a blog. This violates WP:RS. When referring to an opinion poll, the reference should be either to the page of the organization doing the poll or to a respected newspaper publishing it. A blog writing about different polls is not WP:RS. Let's take a day or two for proper sources to be added, otherwise I suggest removing these polls. In the future, please provide proper sources. Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just the last ten? Virtually all the polls on the page point to it. Kimpire (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are given in table directly (i.e "Smith/Reshet Bet"). The blog is just a convenience link. However I agree we should use the original sources where possible. Rami R 08:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A better source can be obtained, but it probably will take more than a day or two given the amount of polls that use that blog.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could keep those that already are in there, but I'm reverting the three latest polls now and will revert any future polls that go back to a blog. I'm sure we all agree Wikipedia isn't about gathering as many edits as possible, and while just sourcing it all back to one single block may be more convenient, it's a violation of WP:RS. It shouldn't take more than one minute extra to link to the actual poll instead to a guy writing a blog presenting polls. The original source, or a respected newspaper, needs to be given, not just "Jeremy's blog".Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

16 Dec Panels/Knesset channel poll

Concerning these edits,[3][4] this isn't a random facebook page; it is the official facebook page of the Knesset channel, and thus a legitimate source. Though even if we for some odd reason prefer inn.com, I don't see where the 0 for Hadash comes from; that sources shows a combined 10 seats for the arab lists. Rami R 09:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Could the table be coloured?

Would it be possible for the centre-left / religious- right blocks to be coloured so that it is easier for people to know which parties are which? it would make it a lot clearer for those who do not know all these different political parties if for example the right/relgiion were coloured blue, and the other were coloured like red or left blank? ObserverUI (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Others" column

There should be an "Others" column, where parties that were projected to receive seats in only a very small number of polls can go. Otzma should probably go there. The Greens could, too (they received seats in one poll, if I remember correctly, but that's it). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No original research

As some users (and an IP SPA) insist on inserting columns for religious-right and centre-left, can I please inform about the rule against original research, WP:OR. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a basic Wikipedia policy. Unless you present a reliable source stating which parties belong in which group, your own insertions of parties in one group or the other is original research and must be deleted under Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick complement

Just wanted to comment I've been checking this page every few days for the last several months. It has been a terrific source of information for the latest polling data and comparatives. You all are doing a huge service. Thank you for your efforts. CD-Host (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Yachad-Otzma merger

It should be assumed, now that the parties are actually running together, that any poll that does not explicitly say otherwise is polling them together. Does anybody know if the Haaretz poll at #2 on the list polled them together or separately? Kimpire (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Kadima

Given that Kadima is not actually running in this election, and has not crossed the threshold in any poll in almost a year, I would like to propose removing the useless column from the table. A footnote can be added to any old polls in which the party still showed relevance. Kimpire (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Poll that had incorrect number of seats

I added a poll that had 121 seats [5] and changed it to a source that had 120 seats overall [6]. The revision was undone. Maybe we could find a third source for the poll and see what is says? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad, your edit was perfectly correct. I mistakenly thought you had just changed the Haaretz number. I should have checked better, David O. Johnson is absolutely right.Jeppiz (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Haaretz poll

There's another poll here [7] that hasn't been added to the article yet. However, I can't access it. Can someone add it? David O. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Time of Israel site covered the poll. I'm going to go ahead and add it. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Knesset Channel 17 March poll

On 17 March from 10pm onwards the Knesset Channel broadcast the results of a poll - possibly that of Panels? - in addition to those broadcast on Channels 1, 2 and 10. It's results should be included in the table. Mcljlm (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)