How it works

Where a list's position comes from. Only from what its candidates who were members of the Knesset did in the 24th–25th Knesset:

• Bills they sponsored. A sponsored bill counts 4 times more than a vote: pushing for a change is louder than voting against one.
• Votes on bills. Private and government bills, except budget laws: a vote on the whole budget says nothing about its separate articles.
• Promises and speeches are not used. Only the Knesset record.
• The sources. The Knesset's open database and the Central Elections Committee's candidate lists.

Whose record a list carries. Its candidates who were members of the Knesset — and only they.

• Joint lists. The partners' former members are counted together; a partner with more of them weighs more.
• Moved to another list. Their record goes with them.
• How many former members it takes. A list is ranked from 2 former members; with one, it is shown but not ranked.

Which lists have a record. Only the Knesset record of former members (24th–25th Knesset) is used. New candidates and platforms are not seen.

• 12 of 38 lists can be evaluated.
• 4 lists with a single former member are shown but not ranked.

Lists without a record. 22 lists have no record in the Knesset and are not shown in the results:

• Seder Hadash for a Constitution, Separation of Powers and Personal Elections
• Tzeva Shahor, Magen Olam haTorah
• Sharshar l’Ahava v’Ahdut Ha”am
• HaKahal, Hareidi Party whose representatives are chosen by the public, headed by Rav Shlomo Elboim
• HaShutafim L’Kulam
• Mifleget Derech Hazon and Tekuma
• HaPiratim (the Pirates)
• T’nuat Ahi, the movement of Rav Yoram Abergil OBM
• Amcha Yisrael, headed by Ofer Winter
• Gan Eden, headed by Yeshua Yisrael ben David
• Bitahon Ishi
• Shema, headed by Naftali Goldman
• Orot HaShahar, heaed by Nissim Louk
• Betah _ bitahon Hevrati, headed by Semion Grafman
• HaGush haTanachi
• HaTikun l’Shitat haBehirot b’Yisrael
• Brit Olam L’Geulat Yisrael
• Ani V’Ata Mifleget Ha’Am HaYisraelit
• Kol HaNashim
• B’yahad Natzliah, Joint Arab-Jewish List, headed by Avi Shaked
• Mishpat Tzedek
• HaTzibbur HaHaredi, headed by Moti Leitner

The answer scale. Closeness compares directions, not intensity.

• «Strongly agree» to everything = «agree» to everything. Strength matters only when your answers are mixed.
• Random answers favour the extremes. Lists with extreme positions come out on top a little more often.

Reading your results.

• «No clear position». The list's record on this statement is too weak to call a side, or rests on one former member or one bill.
• “Few former MKs: N”. The position rests on very few people.
• “Position known for only N% of your answers”. The list has a position on less than half of your answers: shown below the others, not ranked.
• Your answers are not stored. They never leave your device. The site counts only how many people start the quiz and how many reach the results — nothing else is sent.

The order of questions. 8 statements are the same for everyone, then 7 are chosen for you.

• The first 8. The questions that best separate the lists.
• The next 7. Chosen one at a time to tell apart the lists closest to you so far.
• Which topics are asked. Topics most voters care about come first; this changes only which questions you see, not how your answers count.

Limitations — what this quiz can and cannot tell you. The quiz is an orientation, not a precise measurement.

• Ministers and prime ministers sponsor few bills. A list led by them is measured mostly by its other former members and by votes.
• Bloc discipline. About 98 % of votes in the Knesset follow the member's bloc, so a vote is partly discipline.
• Topic labels were made by a language model and checked by other models: on a random sample, the topic was right in about 86 % of cases and the side in about 98 %. Individual mistakes remain.
• Checks so far were done by models, not by people. Agreement between models is not accuracy for real voters.
• Closeness is approximate. Lists with close values cannot be told apart: read them as «about as close».
• The price in a statement («even if …») is not measured.
• A vote against a bill can hide the opposite reason. A party may oppose a draft for being too soft.

How topics are chosen. A topic gets a statement only if the lists' former members acted differently on it in the Knesset:

• Enough lists. At least 8 evaluated lists with a position on the topic, each resting on 3 or more former members.
• A real difference. Their positions spread by at least 0.25.
• Enough bills. At least 5 distinct bills sponsored by them; a re-submitted bill counts once.
• Tested, then frozen. Chosen by testing which values held between the 24th and 25th Knesset, frozen on 18 October 2026, the same for every topic.
• Overlapping topics count once. A bill shared by a topic and a broader one counts toward only one of them.

Topics where all lists pushed the same way, or with too few bills, are left out — even when important.

Important topics that are not in the quiz, and why (state as of 23 October 2026).

• The lists' records hardly differ — nearly everyone pushed the same way: relief for war and terror victims; support for families with children; credit and mortgages; tax enforcement; support for charities; banning harmful online and broadcast content.
• Too few lists have a record once budget votes are set aside: the power of labor unions; defamation law; assisted reproduction.
• Too few bills by the candidates to place the lists: abortion; who is registered as a Jew; the Law of Return for grandchildren of Jews; gun licensing; immunity for soldiers; laws tied to a state of emergency; the Yemenite children affair; the autonomy of minors; cameras in kindergartens and institutions; the term of Supreme Court justices; sports on free channels.
• Asked by another statement: selecting judges (in «Politicians' influence over the courts»); the weight of the Attorney General (in «Ministers' control over senior officials»); civil marriage and divorce (in «Civil marriage» and «Divorce»); conditions on funding religious schools (in «Funding schools without the core curriculum»); alternatives to military service (in «Drafting yeshiva students»); international law and UNRWA (in «Foreign states and international organizations in Israel»); the death penalty and sanctions on terrorists' families (in «Counter-terrorism measures»); judicial review of government decisions (in «Overriding court rulings»); preferences for underrepresented groups (in «Benefits for those who served»); surveillance powers of the security services (in «Protection of personal data»); bank fees and duties (in «Protecting the weaker party to a contract»); local preference in government purchasing (the mirror of «Imports and competition»).
• Bills on unrelated subjects, no single honest question: bans on publishing victims' details; state ownership of disputed property; co-owners' rights in apartment buildings; accountability of individual officials; criminal liability of officials for abuse of office.
• Administrative matters with no position a voter would hold: licensing procedures for businesses and professions; terms and deadlines; the size of public bodies; inheritance law; state awards.

Not present at all, because no bill of a former member of the Knesset carries the topic in a way that separates the lists: the Gaza war and the hostages, a Palestinian state, the cost of living as such. The quiz measures legislation, not campaigns.