I'm a Jerusalemite who currently lives in Tel Aviv. Had I been a "true Jerusalemite," that is, one who can vote in the municipal elections, I would bite my nails, debate, bemoan the lack of more choice, but eventually I would make a decision on who to vote for.
The choice between Nir Barkat and Meir Porush was supposed to be a simple one. After years of ultra-Orthodox control by Uri Lupolianski, who possesses qualities that made it easier for him to be liked by the secular community as well, we are now seeing a distant Orthodox candidate – one who represents an important political family, yet holds the positions of an uncompromising ultra-Orthodox and nationalist.
Meanwhile, Nir Barkat displays promising qualities. He is Jerusalem's secular hope for being a more tolerant and more pluralistic city. However, en route to achieving municipal hegemony, Barkat formed political alliances with ideological rivals, admitting that he has not been loyal to his previously held views.
If I liken both candidates to largely dry lemons, then if I press hard on Barkat's lemon I will be able to draw a few drops, as opposed to Porush's completely dry lemon.
Up until a few years ago, the Orthodox in Jerusalem had a clear strategy of seeking partnership in the municipal government without wishing to take over the post of mayor. However, demography is doing its thing, and the secular community does not always remain loyal to Jerusalem, and so, the Orthodox appetite grew and the traditional strategy changed.
Had I been a Jerusalem resident at this time, I would debate, yet ultimately I would nonetheless vote for Nir Barkat, on the assumption that he would be wise enough to advance Jerusalem. My vote would indeed be a hesitant vote, yet any vote is of equal weight, regardless of whether it was undertaken enthusiastically or hesitatingly.