Panels Poll broadcasted on Knesset Channel April 4 2013.
Current Knesset seats in [brackets]
28 [19] Yesh Atid
25 [31] Likud Beitenu
15 [15] Labor
14 [12] Bayit Yehudi
08 [11] Shas
07 [07] Yahadut Hatorah/UTJ
07 [06] Mertez
04 [06] Movement
04 [04] Hadash
03 [04] Ra’am-Ta’al
03 [03] Balad
02 [02] Kadima
54 [61] Right-Religious
66 [59] Center-Left-Arab
Jeremy's Knesset Insider 
Under the circumstances, I wonder if the blocks still exist or have any meaning.
One thing I learned in talking to people this election season, is the importance people place on having a party in the government. (Ben-Ari probably would have made it otherwise.) I think this has a lot to do with the poll results.
Am I the only one uncomfortable with the idea of raising the threshold? I would prefer to see it left where it is.
The issue is ballot access not threshold. The government’s thinking is backwards. There shouldn’t be a gigantic list of 35 parties; in the last election, only 12 won seats. 3 other parties could have won 1 seat if there wasn’t a threshold. Doubling the threshold will just increase the number of “thrown out” votes. A better alternative would be to double the number of signatures required to get onto the ballot in the first place to show depth of support AND have a geographic requirement such as “You must get X number of signatures from each district” in order to show a breadth of support. Do more gatekeeping at the front end to rather than throwing out votes at the back end. If your party of choice couldn’t get on the ballot then you still have the opportunity to choose between the parties that did on election day. If you do this, you can get rid of the 2% threshold all together.
Another alternative is to keep the current threshold and have a 2nd choice option on the ballot. “If Otzma doesn’t break the threshold, I assign my vote to Bayit Yehudi.” “If Greens and Youth doesn’t get in, then my 2nd choice is Meeretz.” Or whatever. That way people can say “Well at least my 2nd choice got in”.
Either of those is a better alternative to just jacking up the threshold.
I too am extremely uncomfortable with raising the threshold. I provided some arguments against it in my Post article here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Dont-raise-the-electoral-threshold-308107.
Signature requirements won’t change anything. Meeting the requirement just takes a little bit more money/time/energy or signatures can be forged. Not saying signatures shouldn’t be gotten, but such requirements will not alleviate current problems.
My opinion is that there is no alternative to a system whereby at least most of the seats are allotted by district. People will keep trying to escape this, but any other system is wrought with any number of the following: corruption, anti-democratic trends, unaccountability, instability, inefficiency, poor policy decisions, voter frustration, lack of new leaders with a different political culture…
In a district system, legislators are tethered to voters not party members/bodies or the coalition and will be more independent in the public’s interest; a majority/large plurality will be achievable for the sake of coalition formation. Thus both the executive and legislative branches will be strengthened. In addition, sectarian politics will give way to geographic politics (not necessarily “local”); politicians will have incentive to go after all voters in the district and attend to a number of different issues instead of focusing on a narrow sector’s interest and drumming up the support of that sector at the expense of all others.