But assuming that it’s good data, the article only details the increase in each confessional group. As this perspective shows a 8-9% increase in the number of Sunni/Shia voters, perhaps this article is being used as a ‘semi-scare story’ to encourage Christians to block lowering the voting age, using the hoary old argument that they want it balanced by expat voting. (Haven’t they seen that the 2008 law guarantees that registered expat citizens will vote in the next parliamentary elections?)

A far more relevant consideration would be whether lowering the voting age has a significant impact on the electorate as a whole. And here, using the data from this article, there’s a very different picture.
* Sunni go from 27.1% of all voters to 27.5% – an increase of 0.4%
* Shia go from 26.5% to 27.1% – a increase of 0.6%
* Maronites drop from 21.7% to 21.3% – a fall of 0.4%
and so on.
The overall ‘change’ is that the proportion of Muslim voters rises from 60% to 61% while the proportion of Christian voters falls from 40% to 39%. Hardly “a deluge of new voters [that] would upset Lebanon’s sectarian balance”.

The article also does not consider the ‘electoral impact’ of these changes, perhaps because it would be negligible. The new Shia or Sunni voters will mostly vote in electoral districts or municipalities where their families are already registered. Can anyone think of where any of last year’s election results would have been different had 18 year olds been able to vote?

Anyway, it’s a chicken and egg question. and not worth discussing further.

What I said was that it isn’t a matter of simply getting votes, bags upon bags of ballots isn’t going to save Lebanon from sectarian turmoil and any perceived benefits that you may use to justify a system that would force its hand.

I agree with the part where you say I’m half right, but I respectfully disagree about being half right. (joke)

This isn’t a matter of what we would rather see its about what system would yield the best results for Lebanon.

Plain and simple, making people vote who don’t have their basic needs being meet wont solve anything and its only going to further alienate and make them feel that they need to forcefully see change come.

Lebanon is dependent on European and American interventions to solve any and every major sectarian crisis the country saw from pre-modern era to the modern era.

Shouldn’t we be more worried about these issues first and foremost?

I’m not arguing that we completely ignore voting and shunning high voter turnout, but for the state to move forward these votes have to reflect a smarter, healthier, and less sectarian people.

In almost every country, it is mandatory to participate in the tax system (whether it is enforced is another issue). That is a cost of citizenship. Similarly voting must be seen as a cost of citizenship.

Further, making even grandmothers vote is advantageous because it institutes a universalism to the political system. it does not allow them to reject the political system altogether.

You think it would create distrust and chaos, well, it might do that to some degree. but you are wrong to say that that is all it will do. every political change will create some level of chaos and distrust. that is not a sufficient reason to reject it.

In the end, i would rather see Hizbullah and the FPM join into one single party (that that it will ever happen), than a restructured political system. I think that type of action would do more to end sectarianism and corruption in Lebanon than some electoral reforms. which is in line with your argument that people have to change themselves first. but that does not mean that make the electoral system more fair, transparent and accountable is a bad thing.

You need to fix the people, before you can fix the people.

I’m saying we’re broken, and its so obvious and it needs to be said more. Having our grandmothers fill out ballot doesn’t rationalize her hatred for the proverbial “other side,” then FORCING her to fill out a ballot isn’t going to make it better.

And this includes feeding that hungry that are being forced to vote…what sort of society do we want to live in where the state is forcing its citizens to vote for leaders that wont even feed them?

my point was that you can find good and bad to every overall system, and you’re not going to find universal acceptance of any one system (because some people gain and some lose). But there are methodological ways to improve the effectiveness of voting, without imposing vast structural change.

How can you say the type of system is not important then turn around begin imposing ballot structures:
“there should be the option to spoil your ballot, and vote “none of the above” or something”

Which makes little sense because that is called the act of abstaining from an election.

Tell 1973 Chile that electoral systems don’t matter…

Lebanon needs a system with proportional representation, to some capacity, with high governability, which would then mean a strong unified coalition type of government thats able to take over the reigns of control in the land… and thats pretty much the holy grail of systems.

All I can say is , if Bush could be president (twice!) and then right after that regime the ppl elect the first minority president in the US’s most crucial history (and fix all his mistakes), then surely Lebanon is ripe to inherent its share in the future.

one important policy that i forgot to add was that there should be the option to spoil your ballot, and vote “none of the above” or something. and if spoiled ballots win, then some form of renewed election with different candidates is required (or, maybe a presidential appointment).

In voting for candidates, my preference is for some type of ranked voting with run-offs. but that makes little sense when you have small districts. and run-offs are expensive and tend to create voter apathy.

In the UK, people often have to vote tactically: you don’t vote for party A, which you like, because you’re afraid that party B, which you hate, will get elected, so you’re forced to vote for party C, which you hate almost as much as B, just to keep B from getting elected. Thus you never get to find out whether A really has a chance. Single Transferrable Vote looks much better to me.