27-06-2001 23:45									#61
	Remove this text

quote: I don't think anyone claimed the US was a democracy in the 19th century

Uhhh...if you read the quote included in my post, you can see that LOTM claimed exactly that.

	27-06-2001 23:51									#62
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I would suggest that opposed cultural types should require one military unit garrison per 2 points of pop so the sort of army needed to restrain a size 20 city will cost far more to support than the city produces. No-one will co-operate except at gunpoint. Sabotage is rampant wherever the occupiers are momentarily absent. Culture will not change dramatically for many many turns so this is no short term phenomenon.

Now if you can conquer the whole world under those circumstances, fair enough. Otherwise you should have to commit mass genocide and literally kill or drive away every human being which opposes you, removing their cities completely like CtP2 does (but for different reasons). That would make you a victor, but a more evil despicable human being than Stalin or Hitler ever were. Lets not pretend you can be a glorious Roosevelt, Churchill or Lincoln bringing enlightened democracy to the grateful oppressed while conquering the world. The optimum goal of a Civ game ought to be a peaceful unity of all civilisations, with yours being the jewel in the crown. Moo2 managed to convey this impression well, if in an understated way.

	27-06-2001 23:52									#63
	Put an end to popups!

When you conquer a civ's city the chance of rebel should be determined by the population, how old, and how much culture the city has. If that nation has discovered nationalism there should be an increased chance of having a rebel. If you quickly get some of your cultural improvements in that city and get rid of the old ones this will dramatically decrease the old culture and put in a new culture. I know this isn't very historically accurate but this would be a simple way to do it. If the city is under size 8 it won't be that hard to conquer that city, if it's between size 8-12 it would be fairly difficult to conquer that city, and it it's over size 12 it would be very hard to conquer that civ. If you tried conquering that city in the modern era and it was built in the ancient times it would be next to impossible to conquer that city. If you tried taking over a city in the modern era and it was built in the modern era it would be a moderate challenge. I'm sure someboy could think of a better idea but I think with some tweaking my idea could become good.

	28-06-2001 00:15									#64
	Tired of ads?

Grumbold, is right. If the rules make it too difficult, people will just be bored (just like CTPII) and simply waste time starving the cities down to where they could be disbanded. I'm all for realism, but don't ruin a game.

Any maybe the first time I play a game, I'm actually worried about all the enlighted leadership crap, but after that, I'm just looking to win. And after that, it's records. And If it's MP, who gives a crap what the other humans think as long as you kick their ass

RAH
I never felt like a monster starving 100s of cities in CTPII, the dumb rules made me do it.

	28-06-2001 01:35									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Although they didn't have universal manhood sufferage (but France did implement it at around this time), I don't see how you can deny the status of Great Britain or France as democracies or Great Powers. After all, the franchise in many parts of the US before 1865 was limited to white men; a far cry from the democratic ideal.

US had white manhood suffrage - which meant that the majority of households, including poor propertyless and uneducated. A few New England states also gave the suffrage to blacks.

UK in contrast the electorate was a distinct minority of the population. I believe pre-1865 US had a large portion of population enfranchised than even post 1868 UK (1868 reforms still limited the suffrage to householders who paid their own rates - not all tenants did so) yet UK reform debate clearly was i terms of moving to democracy - there was no doubt at the time that the US was a democracy, and that UK was not.

Demo in civ terms means a suffrage wide enough to have an impact on warmaking - do the common soldiers vote? Definitely the case in US in 1861-1863 BOTH north and south - was not the case in UK. In north post-1863 there was a contradiction - because large numbers of blacks were fighting, yet still did not have the vote - it became increasingly clear in north in 1864 that vote would have to be extended to blacks, at least to war veterans. The 15th amendment of course removed all racial
restrictions on voting(in theory at least).

France of course did have universal manhood suffrage from 1848 on - but under Napoleon III (1850-1871) France did not have free elections for executive, and legislative had limited power. France under Nap3 was no demo. Hence in my view demo does not start in France until 1871 - the period 1848-1849 is too short to be meaningful.

Obviously womans suffrage cant be considered definitional to demo in civ 2 terms, since womens suffrage and techs that enable it typically come after demo is implemented.

LOTM

	28-06-2001 01:40									#66
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Uhhh...if you read the quote included in my post, you can see that LOTM claimed exactly that.

Uh yeah, along with Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America"(which BTW, discusses the racial issue), Walt Whitman "Democratic Vistas", Thomas Carlyle "Shooting Niagra" and everyone else who considered the matter at the time.

The racial limitations were shameful, and the 15th amendment, and the civil rights revolution of the 1960's that fulfilled the promise of the 15th amendment were necessary to complete American democracy, but nonetheless the US 1832-1865 was democratic in a way that UK and France were not.

LOTM

	28-06-2001 01:59									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Let's see...pre 1865, something like 40% of the adult US population could vote. In France, the percentage was more like 30%, even pre-1848. In Britain pre-1868 it was around 20%. How is there a qualitative difference between 20% and 40%? Either your definition says that democracy entails all people voting or it doesn't. Is there a magic line between 30% and 40%? Obviously not. I don't think that there's any particular number; my definition of democracy is simply "Government by the people". Even though the vote was restricted by property qualifications in Britain, it was still a democracy. What would you call it? A plutocracy comprising the entire upper and middle class?

	28-06-2001 02:14									#68
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Even though the vote was restricted by property qualifications in Britain, it was still a democracy. What would you call it? A plutocracy comprising the entire upper and middle class?

That law also meant that, prior to the American revolution, more Americans (as a %) could vote than Britons. Simply because the average American had more land.

	28-06-2001 02:31									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Let's see...pre 1865, something like 40% of the adult US population could vote. In France, the percentage was more like 30%, even pre-1848. In Britain pre-1868 it was around 20%. How is there a qualitative difference between 20% and 40%? Either your definition says that democracy entails all people voting or it doesn't. Is there a magic line between 30% and 40%? Obviously not. I don't think that there's any particular number; my definition of democracy is simply "Government by the people". Even though the vote was restricted by property qualifications in Britain, it was still a democracy. What would you call it? A plutocracy comprising the entire upper and middle class?

well let me use your numbers.
at the time neither US or UK gave votes to women. In general the enfranchisement of women did not dramitacally change the socio-political structure on most issues. Upper class anglican women voted tory, no? middle class non-conformist women voted liberal - working class women voted labor. In the US similarly men and women follow generally similar voting patterns, despite hype about gender gaps.

So pre-1868 UK 40% of men could vote(a source would be nice, but the number doesnt sound too far out, so i wont challenge it for now). In pre-1865 US 80% of men could vote. Yes thats the difference between a society that enfranchises all social classess and interest groups (with the glaring and unjust exception of blacks!!) and a society that enfranchises only the middle and upper classes. Or the difference between a democracy and a liberal plutocracy. Precisely.

Britain in 1860 was not governed by the "people", it was governed by "quality", by property . the chartists knew that. Reforming politicians like lord russell knew it. Opponents of reform knew it. At a time when property and the conflict between labor and capital was at the center of politics, and was widely seen to be so, the exclusion of the propertyless, of the working class from politics was the denial of democracy. Its sophism to claim otherwise.

As for France im quite sure your numbers are wrong. That would imply 60% of males voting under the July Monarchy - which im quite sure excluded even the lower middle class.

I'll check and get back to you on that.

LOTM

	28-06-2001 02:34									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch That law also meant that, prior to the American revolution, more Americans (as a %) could vote than Britons. Simply because the average American had more land.

About 30 years ago someone wrote a book more or less to that effect "middle class democracy and the revolution in Massachusetts" IIRC. Point was that Mass had property restrictions, but land was so widely held that 90% of white males could vote.

LOTM

	28-06-2001 02:53									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Listen: you don't get to pick and choose your sociopolitical groups when you make a definition. You can't say that the addition of women to the ballot was less important than the addition of the members of the lower class. My point was that either you're a purist about what democracy means, or you aren't. I agree that the American system was more representative, but it's a question of scale, not a qualitative difference. The number for the UK comes out of "A Pelican History of England volume 8: England in the 19th century". I don't remember which page. The number for France is less certain, but I'm sure I'm right to within five per cent. Under Napoleon the electorate got to something like 25-30% of the adult male population, with returns of up to 3 million. There was a widening of the electorate at some point early in the 1830s. If you insist that 40% makes a democracy, but 20% doesn't, then I ask you again: what government type was Britain under pre 1868? I think that Britain achieved the status of a democracy starting in 1688.

	28-06-2001 03:39									#72
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Frankly I don't care who got to Democracy "first". For my money I'll give it to the Athenians. This hair splitting just shows the advantages that a SE or Ordinance driven system would have over the Civ rigid implementation of economic and government styles.

	28-06-2001 04:19									#73
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Listen: you don't get to pick and choose your sociopolitical groups when you make a definition. You can't say that the addition of women to the ballot was less important than the addition of the members of the lower class. My point was that either you're a purist about what democracy means, or you aren't. I agree that the American system was more representative, but it's a question of scale, not a qualitative difference. The number for the UK comes out of "A Pelican History of England volume 8: England in the 19th century". I don't remember which page. The number for France is less certain, but I'm sure I'm right to within five per cent. Under Napoleon the electorate got to something like 25-30% of the adult male population, with returns of up to 3 million. There was a widening of the electorate at some point early in the 1830s. If you insist that 40% makes a democracy, but 20% doesn't, then I ask you again: what government type was Britain under pre 1868? I think that Britain achieved the status of a democracy starting in 1688.

England
electorate after the reform act of 1832:
800,000. 1 in 30 of the whole population, 1 in 7 of adults
about 15% of adults. ( "From Castelreagh to Gladstone, 1815-1885" by Derek Beales, the Norton Library History of England) Not rule by the people by a long shot. perhaps up to 20% due to economic growth raising people above the property qualification.
No im not a purist - im a pragmatist and thats my basis for saying that the addition of women mattered less than the addition of the lower class. One dramatically changed the substance of politics, the other didnt.

As for France you're way off.

The electorate after the revolution of 1830 was 200,000 out of a population of 33,000,000. ("France 1814-1819, The Rise of a Liberal Democracy" by John Wolfe) Even if we assume only 1 third of population is adults, thats less than 2 percent of the adult population. Does make pre-1868 Britain look a like a democracy by comparison, though. Evidently you forgot that between Napoleon and the July Monarachy came the Bourbon restoration.


What was Britain in 1860 - it was a liberal, bourgeois, constititional monarchy with a highly restricted suffrage. In civ 2 terms its about halfway between a republic and a demo.

But i am flabbergasted that you think Britain pre-1832 was a democracy.

May i quote Beales
"Great landowners, sometimes, as in the case of Old Sarum, owned a borough (IE its seats in Commons-LOTM) outright. More often a landlord had enough property in a constituency or could exert a enough pressure on the votersto be virtually sure of the election of his nominee. Such pressure might include "illegitimate influence" , threats of eviction or withdrawl of custom, bribery, even violent intimidation. In many of the more open constituencies a landlord might still exercise enough of what contemporaries called "legitimate influence" to have a good chance of returning his man. It was thought in the 1820's that over two thirds of the constituencies were at least under the influence of some landlord, usually a peer. 261 MP's were supposed to be effectively nominated by a patron. A mere seven peers either nominated or strongly influenced the election of 51 MP's: the Dukes of Devonshire, Norfolk, and Rutland, teh Marquess of Hertford, and the Earls of Darlington, Fitzwillian, and Lonsdale.

...Parliament's acts, as much as its composition, refLected the landlords' dominance ...."

Lord of the Mark

	28-06-2001 04:27									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark No im not a purist - im a pragmatist and thats my basis for saying that the addition of women mattered less than the addition of the lower class. One dramatically changed the substance of politics, the other didnt.

Hmm, with over 50% of the population being female I would have to disagree with you on both ethical and mathematical grounds