Only 8 Percent of Gazans Today Voted for Hamas: A Data-Driven Look at 2006 vs 2025

Only about 8% of Gazans alive today voted for Hamas in 2006; most never had the chance, making collective blame factually inaccurate and misleading.
Infographic showing that only 8% of Gazans alive today voted for Hamas in 2006, with a large 8% statistic, donut chart, and population breakdown by age.
Contents

The claim that “Gazans voted Hamas into power” is technically true—but only for a small slice of the people now living in the strip. Nearly two decades have passed since the last Palestinian legislative election. Gaza’s population has doubled, birth-rates have remained among the world’s highest, and time itself has quietly rewritten the electoral map.

Who could vote in 2006?

Demographics by Age Group
Gaza Strip - 2006

When Palestinians went to the polls on 25 January 2006, Gaza held about 1.34 million people. Just under half (46.5 %) were old enough to cast a ballot. Turn-out was unusually high—about 77 percent—after a decade-long wait for a new legislature. Hamas’ Change-and-Reform list captured 44–45 percent of the popular vote, enough for a clear parliamentary majority.

Fast-forward to 2025

Gaza’s population now tops 2.18 million. Demographically it is one of the youngest societies on earth: half the residents are children who were not even born when the election was held; another quarter were toddlers or school-age kids. Only one person in four living in Gaza today was old enough to vote in 2006, and even within that group not everyone actually voted.

Crunching the numbers

Combine the share of today’s residents who were voting-age in 2006 (23 %) with the official turnout rate (≈ 77 %) and you find that about 18 percent of the current population actually cast a ballot. Apply Hamas’ 44 percent vote share to that subset and the headline figure collapses: roughly eight percent of present-day Gazans voted for Hamas in 2006.

2025 Gaza Population
Who voted for Hamas?

Why it matters

Talking points that frame Gaza as collectively responsible for Hamas overlook three structural facts:

  1. Demographic turnover – Three quarters of the population literally could not have participated.
  2. Single-election freeze – No legislative vote has taken place since 2006; political preferences have never been re-tested at the ballot box.
  3. Geography vs. national tallies – Hamas’ share was calculated across both West Bank and Gaza districts; its Gaza-only vote was higher, but still represents a clear minority of today’s residents.

Beyond the math.
Blaming all Gazans for Hamas’ rule obscures legitimate grievances about war, governance, blockade, and occupation—and it sidelines younger generations who never had a voice in the first place.

Recognizing that only a small fraction of today’s population endorsed Hamas at the ballot box encourages more nuanced conversations about accountability, humanitarian law, and the prospects for any future political settlement.

Closing Thought

Statistics may not always settle moral arguments, but they can prevent us from aiming collective punishment at people who never had a chance to choose their leaders.

Sources

Population Data, 2006 and 2025 – US Census Bureau

Election Data, 2006 – IEMed

Further Reading

  1. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. (n.d.). Fact Sheet No. 12: Gaza’s Population and Demographics.
  2. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. (2007, February 1). Press Release: Estimated Population in the Palestinian Territory, by Governorate, End Year 2006.
  3. Editorial Board. (2023, October 30). Hamas came to power in flawed elections. But its popularity has never been tested since. The Washington Post.
  4. ReliefWeb. (2006, July 6). oPt: Gaza Fact Sheet #6.
  5. United Nations. (2006, January 29). Palestinian Legislative Council elections, 25 January 2006 – Statement by UN Secretary-General.
  6. The Carter Center & National Democratic Institute. (2006, April). Final Report: Observing the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council Elections.
  7. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (n.d.). Election Guide: Palestine Legislative Council, January 25, 2006.
  8. WAFA – Palestine News & Information Agency. (n.d.). Palestine Legislative Elections.
  9. United States Institute of Peace. (n.d.). Palestinian Politics Timeline: 2006 Election.
  10. Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The World Factbook: Gaza Strip.

More to think on...

A digital tipping screen displays options for 25%, 30%, 40%, and 50% tips, while a customer’s hand hovers hesitantly over the screen. In the background, a faceless corporate executive in a suit counts money, and a tired barista in an apron looks downward in exhaustion.
The “Guilt Tipping” Era: How Tipping Culture Reached a Breaking Point

Tipping was once a token of appreciation—now it’s a psychological trap. In today’s America, digital screens demand 30% before service is even delivered, while billion-dollar corporations dodge wage responsibility and guilt-trip customers into paying workers. This deep dive unpacks the rise of “guilt tipping,” wage theft, corporate greed, and the global spread of this broken model. Who really benefits? Not the workers. Not you. It’s time to expose the system hiding behind that swivel screen.

Read More »
Illustration showing U.S. foreign aid flowing from the Capitol to global regions through military, humanitarian, and financial channels.
Where Your Tax Dollars Go Abroad: The Real Story of U.S. Foreign Aid

Over the past decade, U.S. foreign aid has quietly reshaped wars, alliances, and humanitarian outcomes—often far from public view. From Ukraine’s wartime surge to Afghanistan’s costly nation-building experiment and Israel’s long-standing military financing, billions in taxpayer-backed funds have moved through grants, contracts, stockpile transfers, and emergency appropriations. This investigation follows the money, explains how aid is authorized and delivered, and weighs strategic results against oversight gaps, long-term liabilities, and opportunity costs.

Read More »
People Lie, Numbers Don’t: How Math Reveals Fabricated Data

Discover how a quirky mathematical rule from the 1930s—Benford’s Law—is powering today’s AI systems to detect data fraud. From tax evasion and corporate manipulation to election anomalies and fake scientific papers, this article explores how math and machine learning are exposing fabricated data across industries. Learn how auditors, regulators, and journalists use statistical fingerprints to fight misinformation. If you care about data integrity in the age of AI, this deep dive reveals the math behind the truth.

Read More »