My thoughts exactly!

How could they argue otherwise, when they've been the major culprits in bringing this situation about?

Baruch, I would understand if the Likud guy's line of argument was like I'm saying, defending the Likud's history of bloated governments bediavad: "What else could we do? We have to form a coalition, and the little parties wield too much power! Instead of voting for splinter parties, vote Likud, and that will give us a freer hand in making a smaller government."

Instead, what he said was that large governments are good, because they prolong the life of the coalition. That kind of muddled thinking does not merit my support.

Totally agree with you, Shaul, and with your comment below. I just don't think this guy is any worse than the other people in the party, who also go out and try to defend what is really indefensible. I'll go one step further - I don't think Likud even has to do what they do to form a government. What I would like to see them do is say to the other parties, sorry, we are not going to propose a bloated government just to make you (and our own party hacks) happy. If you don't like it, there will be no government, and if necessary, we'll have new elections. I think that kind of approach might actually accomplish something, if Bibi or whoever would have the guts to try it.

What's really a shame is that Bibi had the opportunity to change this, when he made his abortive unity government with Kadima. It's a shame he didn't have the guts to get beyond the first hurdle, the yeshiva draft exemption, and tackle this issue. The political circumstances existed, if only for a few months - personally, while I'm no big fan of Mofaz, I think Mofaz is getting too much of the blame for what, to my way of thinking, was an honest attempt on his part to bring about this and other much-needed reforms. And, of course, to save his dying party at the same time.

"There will never be electoral reform because that means one of the major parties might lose definitively in the next election"

depends on what the words election reform mean. higher minimum percentage, regional seats, presidential type government, combination of the above?

Under washington there were only 4 Ministries, new ones get added from time to time. All it takes is an act of congress

As Zach said - I'm pretty sure there's no Constitutional limit. What's good about the US system is that the President can choose his own cabinet, without the need to use these positions for coalition-building purposes. What's even better is that although the President needs Congressional approval to appoint cabinet ministers, he can fire them at will.

FWIW, proportional representation actually does work in South Africa, where the ANC has around 2/3 majority by itself, so there's no need for any coalitions.

That said, I agree with you 100% about district representation being a far, far better system. And you and I can go and tap-dance on the roof of the Knesset till next January, shouting for district representation, and it won't make one whit of difference, because the people who would have to vote it into law just happen to be the selfsame people whose unaccountability is our loss and their gain. Why on earth would they vote to make themselves more accountable?

The only way it'll ever happen is if Labor and Likud together get 61 seats, and between them they realize they'll benefit from the loss of the small parties in district-based elections, and so collude to pass electoral reform. But absent a national unity government, that could only happen as the final act of a dissolving Knesset. I was hoping they'd do it this time around (Likud 27 + YB 16 + Kadima 28), but they disappointed me... probably because Kadima realized that as a sinking ship, they would do better to hang on to the existing system that rewards small parties (and soon-to-be small parties).

proportional representation works in a whole bunch of places - where the minimum % is decently high. here it is 2%. raise it to 5% and parties like the mafdal and IL would have to merge or die (even that might not be enough; i didn't do the math). same with yahadut hatorah, they would have to join shas. and the arab parties would have to merge.

Not entirely fair, Ben. It's like when one of your kids sees that his sister got a toy. He was perfectly happy playing with his train set until then, but now that his sister got a new doll, the train is not good enough, and he also wants a new toy.

When the Likud has 27 MKs, and little pipsqueak factions like Barak's Independence Party are getting 4 ministries for 5 MKs, it's very difficult for a PM to sell to his own party MKs that they should shut up and be satisfied with being backbenchers. The fact that Independence got the "real" portfolios, while the Likudnikim got the "joke" portfolios is almost coincidental. The real problem is that parties like Independence even exist, and can extort the PM for ministries in return for coalition support. If the Likud had 61 MKs, we could easily have under 10 ministries, and there would be no need to "buy off" any MKs.

bibi gave miki eitan and yuli edelstein etc those joke jobs at the beginning of this government (2009?). independence came later. independence only exists because it split with labor (under a law meant to reform the old way of splitting from a party). they weren't elected in.

OK, so at the time it was 4 (or 5?) portfolios for 13 Labor MKs. Still, following proportionality rules, you need to have 9 portfolios for 27 Likud MKs. My point still stands.

I don't understand your list of joke ministries. Some of those are really quite important. Do you think they should not be minstries but something else instead?

all of those ministries were either carved out of other ministries (eg culture and sport) or they are jobs which were simply made up; they never existed before.

excellent article. the goal of election reform can not be "screw the hareidim".