THE VOTE THAT CAN DECIDE

discussed this following an appeal after the elections of 1996, and ruled that the way the law is formulated, blank ballots are not 'valid', but it added that this is not obviously the preferred state-of-affairs, and possibly the parliament (knesset) should discuss this explicitly.

The last week, several appeals were submitted again to the high court, concerning the blank ballots. The court ruled that it is too late to discuss this before the elections. Still it is reasonable to demand that the required discussion should take place also after the elections, the same way that discussion of the interpretation of the elections laws in the US took place after the elections.

Given the spirit of the law, if Sharon does not get 50 percent of the total number of votes, including the blank ballots, he has no mandate: His election is based only on a technical neglect in the formulation of the law. At the moment, the polls indicate that he might have the required 50%, but in practice, his race towards the 50%, like that of any candidate in previous elections, is a tight one. In the polls, at least 5% of the 52% voting for Sharon switch to Peres, in case he runs. These are not right wing voters, but another segment of the 'just not Barak' voters, who vote Sharon out of no choice, and may still consider casting a blank ballot instead.

In a close race, every vote counts.

Many of the opponents of both Barak and Sharon, are still hesitating between boycotting the elections (not voting) and voting blank. But only those who vote can harm Sharon. As far as the law is concerned, there is no way to distinguish between those who do not vote because they boycott the elections, and those who do not vote because they 'don't care about politics'. The absolute majority required by the elections law is determined by the number of actual voters.

A blank ballot vote at this stage, is a vote against Sharon - the vote that can decide if Sharon will have mandate for war.