Question: What can a citizen in Israel do only once every few years, while a resident of Texas can do it many times a year?Answer: Vote.

There is a vast gap between democratic countries worldwide in the number of times their citizens are called to vote, the iconic act most identified with a democratic regime. The dramatic disparity in the number of voting opportunities among different countries mirrors the number of public offices defined by law and constitution as requiring their legitimacy directly from the people.

What causes the significant gaps in the number of votes, and what do they indicate?

The number of elected officials is determined by two axes: the vertical distribution of power (between central and local government) and the horizontal distribution (between the branches of government).

In federal countries like the United States, sovereignty is divided between the federal government and the states, necessitating numerous separate state-level elections (for governors, local legislatures, etc.). In contrast, in centralized (unitary) states like Israel, power is concentrated in the central government, so there are only two main levels of elections: national and local.

Furthermore, presidential systems like in the U.S. add a separate election for the president, the head of the executive branch. In parliamentary systems like Israel's, the prime minister emerges from the parliament, and there are no direct elections for the position.

The combination of federalism and a presidential system in the U.S. creates the maximum number of elections. This structure arose from a historical desire to create a system of checks and balances to limit the government's power, even at the cost of gridlock. Conversely, the combination of centralism and a parliamentary system in Israel minimizes the number of elections. This structure was designed to enable decisive and effective governability, crucial for dealing with the enormous challenges of establishing the state, but it carries the risk of political instability in a multi-party system.

Direct vs. Representative Democracy

The degree of direct citizen involvement in decision-making is another dimension affecting the nature of democracy. While all modern democracies are representative, where citizens elect representatives to make decisions for them, some countries, with Switzerland being the most prominent example (and California to some extent), extensively integrate elements of direct democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens make public decisions directly, without the mediation of elected representatives. At the state level, direct democracy was last practiced in ancient Greece (5th century BCE). Mechanisms like referendums, citizen initiatives, and the recall of elected officials allow citizens to vote directly on laws and policy issues. These tools do not replace representative democracy but complement it, giving citizens the power to decide on the issues themselves, not just on the identity of their representatives.

“Long Ballot” vs. “Short Ballot”

The United States is the quintessential example of a "long ballot" democracy, offering its citizens a vast number of voting opportunities. This structure stems from a unique combination of a federal system, a presidential system, and a tradition of direct elections for many positions. The multiplicity of elections exists at all levels:

• At the federal level, citizens elect a president (through the Electoral College) and representatives to both houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives).

• At the state level, which is the core of federalism, each state has its own elected government system: a governor and other senior officials, legislatures, and uniquely, in most states, judges are also elected.

• At the local level, the number of elected officials increases even more and includes mayors, council members, sheriffs, district attorneys, and members of special-purpose boards (like school boards).

The roots of this multiplicity of positions lie in the "Jacksonian Democracy" tradition of the 19th century, which favored the direct election of officials out of suspicion of elites and turned professional roles (like judge or sheriff) into political ones. The implications of this model are complex: it gives citizens direct control but at the cost of burdening the voter ("voter fatigue") and politicizing systems that are supposed to be professional, such as the judiciary.

Israel represents the other end of the spectrum, with few voting opportunities for its citizens. This is due to a combination of a centralized state structure, a parliamentary system, and a tradition of professional appointments for key positions in the legal and law enforcement systems, instead of their election.

The National Level

In Israel, there is one national election for the Knesset. In these elections, 120 Knesset members are elected using a national proportional representation system, where the entire country is a single electoral district.

The Local Level

The second election system is for local authorities, held once every five years. Citizens cast two ballots: one for a party list for the local council (proportional elections) and the other for the direct election of the head of the authority. If no candidate for the head of the authority wins 40% of the vote, a second round is held between the two leading candidates.

Non-Elected Positions

Unlike in the U.S., many key positions in Israel are filled by appointment rather than direct election. Among others, in Israel, the President of the State (elected by the Knesset), the Prime Minister (chosen from within the Knesset and dependent on a coalition), all judges (selected by a committee), and the heads of the law enforcement system are appointed.

The Israeli model reveals a paradox: despite the few elections, the system suffers from extreme instability. The reason lies not in the number of elected positions but in the proportional election system, which encourages political fragmentation and makes it difficult to form stable governments. This shows that a "short ballot" is no guarantee of effective governability.

Further Case Studies: Germany and Switzerland

Between the two extremes of the U.S. and Israel, Germany and Switzerland demonstrate hybrid models that combine different elements.

Germany: Parliamentary Federalism

Germany is a parliamentary federalism, combining the distribution of power between levels of government. Citizens elect representatives at the federal (for the Bundestag), state, and local levels. However, the parliamentary system limits direct elections: the Chancellor and the heads of the states are elected by their respective parliaments. Only the heads of local authorities are directly elected. Thus, federalism increases the number of elections, but parliamentarism limits the direct election of the executive branch.

Switzerland: Federalism with Direct Democracy

Switzerland presents a complex model that combines federalism, direct democracy, and a collegial executive branch. Citizens have many opportunities to elect representatives at different levels, but the most prominent feature is the extensive use of direct democracy mechanisms: citizens frequently vote in referendums and citizen initiatives, thereby deciding directly on policy issues. The federal executive branch is not a single president but a council elected by the parliament. This combination gives citizens dual power: both to elect representatives and to directly oversee their decisions.

Is There an Ideal Model? TL;DR: No.

The constitutional structure (federal/unitary and presidential/parliamentary) is the decisive factor in determining the number of elected officials. Each model represents a trade-off between competing values:

• The American model ("long ballot"): Favors the distribution of power and direct accountability but at the risk of political gridlock, voter fatigue, and the politicization of professional roles.

• The Israeli model ("short ballot"): Emphasizes centralism and efficiency but suffers from chronic political instability and over-centralization stemming from its election system.

In conclusion, there is no "ideal model"—the choice of specific governmental structures reflects, and to a large extent creates, the political culture of that country. Political culture is an expression of the history and values of each society and the balance it chooses between governmental efficiency, democratic accountability, stability, and representation.

Title: "voter fatigue"