Lebanese elections use the “block vote” for multi-candidate lists with a confessional requirement. That is, the list in each multi-member electoral district that obtains the most votes wins ALL of the seats in the district, which makes for high stakes in each district. The confessional requirement is that for a a given district, each multi-candidate list must have a pre-specified distribution of candidates from various religious groups. For example, in one district each list may have to have two Maronites, one Greek Orthodox, two Sunnis, and one Druze. Other districts have other confessional distributions. These requirements are determined to reflect the populations in each district, but the groups cant be represented in perfect proportion in any district. Disproportionalities can be smoothed out across districts, and the requirements are indeed drawn up nationally, but their specification is still fraught with considerable controversy.
The confessional requirements are in place to encourage the cooperation of the various religious/ethnic groups. No groups can “go it alone”, and with the block vote, they have to ensure that their coalitions are attractive to a large segment of voters in each group in each district. The system is likely to promote ethnic cooperation better than most alternatives. However, it also encourages coalitions of the type described in the below NYTimes article: collections of local patrons, or patrons that buy support from their own and other groups. Combined with the high-stakes of the block vote and it is not surprising that the elections are expensive.
The NYTimes writes:
…The parliamentary electoins here in June are shaping up to be among the most expensive ever held anywhere, with hundreds of millions of dollars streaming into this small country from around the globe.
Lebanon has long been seen as a battleground for regional influence, and now, with no more foreign armies on the ground, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are arming their allies here with campaign money in place of weapons. The result is a race that is widely seen as the freest and most competitive to be held here in decades, with a record number of candidates taking part. But it may also be the most corrupt.
Votes are being bought with cash or in-kind services. Candidates pay their competitors huge sums to withdraw. The price of favorable TV news coverage is rising, and thousands of expatriate Lebanese are being flown home, free, to vote in contested districts. The payments, according to voters, election monitors and various past and current candidates interviewed for this article, nurture a deep popular cynicism about politics in Lebanon, which is nominally perhaps the most democratic Arab state but in practice is largely governed through patronage and sectarian and clan loyalty.
…
As it happens, Lebanon has campaign spending limits this year for the first time, and the Arab world’s first system to monitor that spending, by the Lebanese chapter of Transparency International. But the limits — which are very loose to begin with — apply only in the last two months of the campaign. And they are laughably easy to circumvent, according to election monitors and Lebanese officials.
Reformers have tried and failed to introduce a uniform national ballot, which could reduce the influence of money and make the system less vulnerable to fraud. Currently, political parties or coalitions usually print up their own distinctive ballots and hand them to voters before they walk into the booth, making it easier to be sure they are getting the votes they have paid for.