Israel will hold unprecedented second election after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fails to form

To save the planet and it’s inhabitants

No one wants to work with Bibi

If Netanyahu doesn't cling to power in Israel, if someone less hard-right gets installed in his place, Trump might have more trouble than a little bit. Someone should tweet to Trump what a loser Netanyahu is. Just to piss him off a little bit.

Is there any reason to believe that anyone will be able to form a government after another election? It seems unlikely that there have been any large shifts in the electorate so soon since the last election.

need to take place. The problem is that the ultra-orthodox birthrate in Israel for the last ~ 25 years has been higher than the general birthrate, hence the rise of more rightist parties.

My long ago poli sci degree fails me. What happens in a parliamentary system if no party can cobble together a sufficient coalition to form a government?

Maybe they can answer your question, I don't have a clue. In my view, that would be like us having a Presidential race tied 259-259 among the two leaders (is that possible, seem maybe in a multi-person race). What happens, do the other candidate(s) with electoral votes get to chose who to give theirs too? Do we let the two leaders draw straws with the one drawing the longest straw becoming President?

First, remember that the vote that counts is the vote by the electoral college. Not all states require the electors to vote as their state did.

First, there really doesn't have to be a tie to cause the move to Plan B. A winning candidate must have a majority of the electoral college - 270 votes. In the unlikely event a third party candidate secured enough electoral votes to deny both major party candidates a majority, we go to Plan B.

No, the third and lower places candidates cannot give away their votes. In the unlikely event a third party candidate had any electors pledged to him/her, s/he could ask those electors to vote for one of the two leading candidates - but - some states forbid electors to vote contrary to their state vote (I personally question the constitutionality of such laws) and an unbound elector could refuse the request.

However, in the event of tied vote by the electors, the House of Representatives decides the election. Unfortunately, in that vote, each Congressional delegation gets one vote - so that North Dakota has the same vote as California.

That means something like 20% of the people decide the election, insane.

That provision may have made sense in 1787 but not so much now. Then again, I'm not convinced the Electoral College makes much sense now.

However this arrangement is inherently unstable, as a majority of members of the parliament are by definition outside of government and enough of their support would be required on confidence motions to prevent the government’s failure.