If an area is highly unrepresentative (e.g. 90% of people live are from one Kupat Memshala), then their population will be spread across a wider geography. In other words, geographic power will come from local diversity. A city like Ramle, with its diverse ideological population, is likely to form a geographically cohesive Balanced District and have significant national power. On the other hand, if there is a Haredi Kupat Memshala (or two), a place like Bnei Brak will find its population spread out across multiple Balanced Districts.
Even more affected will be Kupot Memshala that are located in only one area. If there is a Druze Kupat Memshala, with members primarily in the North, their members would be assigned to Balanced Districts as far away as Be'er Sheva. Those other Balanced Districts would need their Druze percentages. When it comes time to campaign, these geographical concentrated Kupat Memshala members are less likely to be targets of voter-coalition building.
Put simply, this system inherently rewards ideological diversity within geographic areas and larger Kupot Memshala that are spread across the country. A Druze population would have to think seriously about the loss of geographic power and concentration that would come with forming a geogaphically concentrated micro-Kupat Memshala.
Beyond the geographical issues, populations that work with one another will find themselves building more effective cross-Kupat Memshala coalitions. Lod is a city divided - it might have a geographically concentrated Balanced District but its highest vote-getters are still likely to be rejected by a significant part of the population. They won't serve all their constituents. Ramle, on the other hand, has built bridges. Their representatives would truly represent their whole populations in the Knesset.
Drawbacks
Districts of any kind suffer from a major flaw. If politics are polarized on ethnic or racial lines then a district will be a guaranteed spot for those who push radical racial or ethnic agendas. In the U.S. districts are carved out that have Black majorities to ensure they can win seats in the House - and historically Blacks very rarely won 'White' districts in the South. The idea is simple - if the society is bi-polar then the larger population will always win and will suppress the minority. This is especially true if every district is balanced the same way (as with Balanced Districts).
From a distance, this would seem to be a challenge in Israel. However, there are two counterbalancing realities here:
- First, Kupot Memshala are not ethnic, religious or sectarian. There is no reason a 'Progressive' Kupat Memshala wouldn't welcome Arab members. It is possible a 'Religious' Kupat Memshala that embraces socially conservative values across religions might actually join Islamist, Haredi and even Christian populations. In addition, Kupot Memshala aren't hard-wired. People can shift and move between them. Rather than reinforcing 'identity politics', Kupot Memshala reinforce 'ideology' politics. This is a healthy shift.
- Second, Israel is not as simple as Jew vs. Arab. There are vast divides in the Arab population (from Communist Secularists to Islamists) and much the same exists within the Jewish population. When judging the policies and personality that will win a Balanced District election you are more likely to succeed with ideological moderation than with ethnic extremism. Yes, both Arab and Jewish ethnic extremists sit in Knesset today, but they would have to moderate their positions to build the broadest voter-coalition - which would be necessary to win even a single seat.
Balanced Districts are thus the ideal counterpoint to Kupot Memshala. Yes, they are in tension - with one enabling separation and the other pulling people together. At the same time, they actually enable one another. Effective Balanced Districts can't exist without Kupot Memshala. Kupot Memshala thus provide a route to both social diversity and social cohesion.
To learn more about Balanced Districts, read Section 6.2 of the Constitution.
