Talk:Elective dictatorship

[Untitled][edit]

What's the purpose in mentioning the commonwealth of Britain bill? The way it is presented at the end suggests it would end the elective dictatorship, but it wouldn't at all. I'm removing the reference. Ud terrorist 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the last paragraph (solutions to reform elective dictatorship) seems to suggest that PR and a written constitution enjoy widespread popular support. Whatever their merits I think it fair to say that this is not the case. Wording tightened up.

Xdamr 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added cleanup tag[edit]

The third paragraph ("The governing party...") requires cleanup -- it contains a fragment and a lot of repetition. Joriki 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, I've rewritten the article to give it a more coherent and cohesive appearence.

Xdamr 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

early History[edit]

From the political institutional point of view, the North American colonists of the 1760's-1770's wanted either directly elected representatives from the North American colonies in the British parliament, or some kind of structurally-entrenched "constitutional" guarantee of certain privileges for the North American colonies (i.e. so that the privileges couldn't be revoked by a simple majority vote of parliament after the next revolving-door change of British ministries). It was the refusal of politicians in London to seriously consider either of these demands which was one of the contributing causes of the American Revolutionary War. I think that sometimes Americans in the 1760's and 1770's railed against parliamentary elective dictatorship (though they presumably didn't use that exact phrase). AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]