Sunni Muslims constitute 24%[14] or 25%[15] of the total population. Sunni notables traditionally held power in the Lebanese state together, and they are still the only sect eligible for the post of Prime Minister.

The Maronites are the largest of the Christian groups. They have had a long and continuous association with the Roman Catholic Church, but have their own patriarch, liturgy, and customs. Traditionally they had good relations with the Western world, especially France and the Vatican.[citation needed] They traditionally dominated the Lebanese government, and the President of Lebanon is always Maronite. Their influence in later years has diminished, due to their relative decrease in numbers, but also due to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which generally benefited Shi’a and other Muslim communities, and was resisted by most Maronites. Today the Maronites are believed to compose nearly 25.2% of the population, scattered around the Lebanese countryside but with heavy concentrations on Mount Lebanon and in Beirut.
——————————————–

yeah~ Definitely I read it.

so now you know Sunni muslim isn’t 34% and neither Shia do.

Both are just 49%~60%.

from this data…

Shia muslim is not 35% in lebanon.
they are just 27%

Sunni also 24%(or 26%)

No one, No where say that Maronite christian 15% in lebanon.
At least 25%.

You just bring a fake or old data.
Lebanon isn’t muslim state…
From now and then.

But allow me to mention another pointin regards to expat vote. I have often maintained that the issue will not be a game changer like what the Christian leaders would like us to believe for two reasons. (1) As you have mentioned more than once the current law will not extend the vote to anyone who is not on the electoral lists already. We all know the exact numbers of potential voters in each district. The numbers will not change irrespective of whether we extend the vote to expats or not. The participation will be affected in some areas. (2) To extend the vote and not provide meaningful access is a cruel hoax. If we are to assume that there are say, one million officially registered Lebanese who are abroad and who are eligible to vote. Do we really expect all of them to travel, in some cases for thousands of miles, to one of the Lebanese Embassy/Consulate in order to stand in line and cast physically a vote? Don’t get me wrong, the eligible expats should get the right to vote but it is equally important to consider increasing the access substantially. I know of no other way to accomplish that other than a mail in vote short of an electronic one.:-) And you know the likelyhood of having any of these options adopted prior to “hell freezing” lol.

WL,
Parliamentary seat distribution and civil service job appointments , in addition to the tacit understanding about the religious affiliation of the top three elected posts in the government,that are not based on meritorious grounds are all part of the same rotten apple of confessionalism.
It is also important to note that the system has become so well entrenched that the current leadership has adapted to it and gets its legitimacy from it. That is why it is unrealistic to expect any meaningful reform from those who owe their power to the current arrangement.

The argument is that expat voting would ensure ‘sectarian balance’.

First: Numbers The voter register already includes all the citizens who have the right to vote, whether they are resident here or not. No new expat voters will be added unless Lebanon changes its citizenship laws.

Second: Impact. Under the current electoral system, or any new system that uses ‘regional districts, I would argue that expat voting – like lowering the voting age – will have limited confessional impact on the results. Christian expats will cast ballots for the districts where they are already registered and, in most cases, will have the chance only to vote for Christian MPs; something similar applies to Muslim expats. There are only a few areas that are sufficiently ‘multi-confessional’ that expat voting (like voting age) could conceivably make a confessional difference.

In fact, the major impact of allowing expat voting is that it would probably increase voter turnout in districts where a sizeable proportion of the electorate lives overseas. And this is the key: increasing voter turnout has a major impact on the “intra-confessional” politics of Lebanon. The reason why LF wants expat voting is not just that they simply want Christians to vote: they believe that expat voting allows their party to have a better chance of winning more votes than their opponents in Christian districts. That’s also why Kateab want it. That’s also why FPM wants it. And that’s also why Amal, Hezbollah and Future MPs – also parties with large constituencies overseas – supported the idea when it was debated in parliament in 2008.

Experiences of expat voting around the world shows that it is established or radicalized parties who benefit most from it, rather than independent or non-affiliated candidates, whose popularity usually rests on their local reputation in a community. This is especially the case if the parties have organized structures overseas, as do all Lebanese parties.

That doesn’t mean I think expat voting is a bad idea. I support it, especially if it ensure all Lebanese citizens get the right to vote. It’s just that i’d prefer to see some more logic and honesty in the wider political debate and not just on this blog.

I believe there is another element that we haven’t mentioned up to now and that could explain some of our politician’s actions. In this exchange we’ve been concentrating on electoral issues and supposing that our politicians only bicker “thematically” (within the confines of one issue), which they don’t.

One of the central issues today is on the political appointments in the public administration. And such matters are not much discussed in public. And when this is done, it’s done indirectly through bickering that could seem nonsensical and ego-driven, and through other issues (with this principle in mind: “You don’t give me what i want, i will upset some of your political plans or lose face). And I think one of the reasons why there is so much debate over the municipal elections is precisely because of that. It is no coincidence that the FPM is the one making a lot of noise. Michel Aoun’s party has been the one challenging the mu7asasa rules devised under the Syrian occupation. And today, it’s asking for two things: an increase of the share of christian nominations, and the extension of the communal rule in appointments to the Christian leaders. And you know that we’re talking about several dozen senior appointments and at least the double for junior appointments (Ministry of Interior and Foreign Affairs…).

And the Zu’ama have completely neutralised the official mechanisms for those appointments. Instead of dealing with appointments one administration at a time through proposals made by the minister responsible for that administration and getting the approval of the cabinet, the zu’ama have devised another system that deals with “package deals and several informal rules: each Za’im appoints from within his community and patronage network, each asserts geographical or functional control over an administration and names people within it, and muslim zu’ama split half of the christian posts amongst themselves. Now the FPM has neutralised this last rule quite affectively, but hasn’t up to now much profited from that (most of the christian appointments it seems have been favourable to the Lebanese Forces even if the issue was brought up by the FPM).