Most writers on democracy are in a continuing dialogue with Dahl, and this book is an invaluable way to continue that discussion.

This two-volume retrospective of Robert Dahl's work confirms that he is the foremost political theorist of this generation.

Robert A. Dahl is the premier democratic theorist of our time. The essays constitute an extraordinary intellectual edifice.

Dahl's work, which has been cited by countless political scientists since it was first published, provides a useful framework for the examination of democracy (which is not quite equivalent to what he terms 'polyarchy'; democracy consists of a bit more than a polyarchal system). The book is particularly concerned with the two main variables of political orders: 'competition' (public contestation among various political actors) and 'participation' (defined with regards to the right to participate). Using these variables, these systems can graded based on whether they possess these qualities to a greater or lesser degree. While most modern political systems fall in a 'gray area' (they are neither perfectly competitive nor inclusive), Dahl believes that all should strive towards the ideal type, or polyarchy. Dahl goes on to outline the benefits of a polyarchal system and the various ways in which such a system can be achieved. Yet, Dahl also recognizes that the transition to polyarchy is neither inevitable nor invariably desirable. Certain conditions are needed in order for the full benefits of a polyarchy to be realized. Thus, the minimal nature of Dahl's conception allows flexibility in its application. This is why his notion of democracy, as defined through polyarchy, has been adopted time again by those engaging in the debate over democracy, including such luminaries as Samuel P. Huntington and Larry Diamond.

This is a highly readable summary of Dahl's earlier work. Non-academics will find his use of dialogue easily accessible. Perhaps it's greatest success is the way that it thoughtfully approaches the basic premises of democracy, foundational principles all too-often glossed over in democratic literature.

This is an excelent book on political theory and also one of the best defenses of democracy as a political system I have ever read. Specially good it its chapter on "guardinship", contradicting the most common arguments in favor of different "tutors" of the people.

Dahl created a bunch of dialogues that clearly illustrate specific problems with anarchism and elitism. Then, he discussed democracy and his hopes for the future. He's a fine writer and thinker who deserves more attention from non-academics.

And I'm living proof. While not an XML guru by any stretch of the imagination, I am an experienced Web developer. This book helped me get a grasp on a technology I know very little about, in conjunction with a technology I feel quite comfortable with (ASP.NET).

The in's and out's of XML are covered in the first 4 chapters, providing some helpful XML reference material. I found the chapters on Datasets and using XSLT with ASP.NET most helpful. Explanations on quick ways to accomplish actions (for instance writing out a dataset to an xml file) are coupled with Dan's take on the BEST way to do these tasks.

Also, the book chapters are logically put together to allow you to pick and choose chapters when you need them as a reference. A good technical read as well. Right now this is my first reference for using XML with ASP.NET.

If I were to analogize this book, it would be something in the vein of "Dan Wahlin's 'Ferrari'". This assessment implies that the author has crafted a fast, powerful, much sought-after reference to those of us who appreciate the finer things in life (at least in terms of Web development). This was actually the fourth book I read about .NET, having picked it up just shortly after its release in September of 2001. It's a great piece of work, and a must have for the experienced developer looking to take his or her game to the next level. I've found the book to be extremely well written, both grammatically as well as syntactically in the code examples provided.

I'm President of an ASP.NET User Group, and this title is on my "Must Buy" list for books to get.

The book is admittedly smaller than most .NET texts at a "mere" 496 total pages, but don't let the size fool you - it's chock full of helpful stuff. And it's not for the faint of heart - it's hardcore. Dan whets the appetite of the seasoned developer by providing a general discussion about (1) what's possible with XML, (2) how the .NET Framework fits into the picture, and (3) how to do it. This isn't some tutorial for the beginning programmer looking to tackle .NET development and XML at the same time, nor is it for those just looking to find some cool code to instantly plug into their Web projects - the book is best used as a starting block for the experienced developer looking to build robust e-business systems. Hence the title, it's geared specifically for developers looking to expand their skill set or upscale their existing apps to a more manageable and portable form.

This is a true book written for developers, by a developer. Plain and simple.

While the first few chapters of the book give an excellent primer to XML, validation through DTDs/XDR schema, XPath, XPointer and XLink, XSL/XSLT, XHTML, SAX integration, and navigating and programming the DOM, Dan kicks into high gear full speed and blazes into full on apps development. His explanation of the relationship between XPath and XPointer is in my opinion of the better explanations, from any XML text. He also spends much time with managing XML data into and out of databases in his chapters on ADO.NET's XML capabilities and incorporating SQL Server 2000.

More than 1.5 years in the making, the various examples are current with the .NET Framework Beta 2, so barring any major dramatic syntactical changes in the final release of .NET (which at this point is highly unlikely), the book will be relevant for some time, not to be run obsolete in 6 months.

However, a slight concern of mine is the use of C# throughout the book, making it rather alienated in terms of audience. The examples may prove a bit more challenging for the developer choosing to code exclusively in Visual Basic.NET. To truly maximize effectiveness of this book, the reader should possess:
ØAn intermediate-level familiarity with programming within the .NET Framework (Beta 2)
ØExperience in programming with C# (and/or a background in Java, and/or a background in C++)
ØSome experience in XML, XSL, and schema

Speaking as someone who is constantly try to evangelize the use of XML to the masses in my own right, Dan preaches a very convincing sermon.

When you're ready for the next evolution in your .NET career...make sure to check it out.

WHAT I LIKE IN PARTICULAR:
ØThe proofreading is excellent - I've gone through it three times, and I found it to be nearly flawless in terms of editorial snafus.
ØDan demonstrates some very advanced, very practical, very cool examples. He proposes the development of numerous apps that will truly harness the power of XML and .NET.
ØIn addition to the source code from the Sams Web site, Dan's companion site, http://www.xmlforasp.net/ is one of the best examples out there for being a living extension to his text by way of providing practical demonstrations. Dan also considerately included the files as a Visual Studio.NET project, so that examples appeal to both those who would prefer the IDE/WYSIWYG approach, as well as the hardcore Notepad coders. However with all code examples being written in C#, having each listing available in VB.NET (if not within the text itself) would have been icing on the cake.
ØBasic .NET error trapping and handling are presented throughout the examples, with liberal uses of the TRY...CATCH...FINALLY construct are used. This indirectly teaches a more refined, disciplined way to write .NET code.
ØA near complete list or properties, methods, and attributes is well represented...which is hard to find in many .NET texts...largely only including those features that authors chose to use in their own examples. The explanations of the use of the various namespaces associated with the .NET Framework is also very well explained and documented.
ØDan has written some of the coolest, most practical Web services I've seen yet, exhibiting what's truly possible and on the new frontier for programming with the .NET Framework.
ØDan is also very active in several online ASP and ASP.NET forums and in real life training, and is quick to help with questions about his book, or with XML integration. He makes himself very accessible to questions or comments about the integration of XML. This again is a very welcome value-added extension to the book.

This is easily the best book for working with XML in ASP.NET, devoted to the subject. The examples are all in C#, but that doesn't really matter. When I needed C# I could copy the code directly; when I needed VB.NET it was easy to convert. This is a well-written, easy to follow book that covers the most important parts of a complex subject, and has lots of good samples to follow. Other XML for .NET books are better for an overall survey of the subject, but the nice thing about Wahlin's book is that it has the gist of XML for ASP.NET programmers. Highly recommended.

another well done piece by dahl. he brings you into the everyday runnings of an american city and lets people see how politics can run and ruin everything.

This book is great! Assuming you already have a Ph. D. in Political Science. Otherwise this book is best reserved for drop quoting, or light reference. The author shows bias towards the United States' form of Democracy, as is to be expected in such a book. The simplistic nature makes the reader annoyed more than informed. The childish approach is suited for school children, but not as appropriate as other books for real analysis.

_On Democracy_ is not a very joyful book to read. It is rather dry and doesn't seem to want to create much controversy in the things it says. However, it is mostly accurate and does a fairly good job of laying out the basics (and I mean the very basics) of democratic theory, as well as mapping a few of the different ways in which democracy is actually practiced in various countries. If you are relatively familiar with this sort of material, this book will not provide you with any new insights. But for someone just starting to examine the nature of political beliefs, I can imagine that this may be helpful. If nothing else, it will probably be handy as a sort of quick reference book.

The previous reviewer obviously misunderstood Dahl's intent. This book is an introduction to democracy for the uninitiated, not a definitive philosophical statement. Expecting more from such a short volume is silly.

That said, Dahl masterfully surveys major areas of scholarly consensus and debate, synthesizing a vast literature as no one else could. Frankly, this book is without peer. It is a beautifully written, succinct and compelling guide to democracy, required reading, if you will, for all those who cherish the gift of liberty.

The constitution and constitutional law have always interested me. Further, it has always seemed to me that the cliche "We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic," was always a subterfuge for denying (while acknowledging) a paradoxical truism. Dahl's extended essay goes a long way in showing that to be correct.

Are we more of a republic or a democracy. Dahl thinks that we have more elements of the former. Using the electoral college, "first past the post" as opposed to proportional senate representation, and the fact that the senate and the president (in the original constitution) were more-or-less picked by federal and state legislatures. So in this sense, as that of any good history book, the founders were not the believers in democracy that high school civics has us believe.

Through all of this, Dahl makes some interesting suggestions. Why shouldn't the senate be abolished. It's raison d'etat, after all, seems to be to give unequal representation (2 members per state regardless of size), and create a more 'enlightened' (6 years, 35 yr. of age minimum) house. But why couldn't a unicameral system, used in most democratic countries, work? Also, he proposes that any house be proportionally represented. Parties send out ballots with a list of candidates, people vote for the party they'd like to see, and each party seats according to percentage of votes. Biproduct? This would get rid of our dead-horse two party system. He suggests some others, but I don't want to spoil the suprise.

Still, Dahl's book is quite flawed. It is extremely one sided. Dahl doesn't even try to give arguments for the electoral college. Well, first, there's the very fact that we are the UNITED STATES of America. If we went by straight popular vote, the state lines would become a mere formality and we might-as-well federalize the whole process. While I agree that it should be set up proportionally rather than winner-take-the-state, it is important, especially during elections, to treat states as sacrosanct entities, not just inconveniences. Dahl talks a lot about the Federalist, but has he read the Anti-Federalist, where a lot of these arguments are made (and ironcially, it is chock full of the democratic sentiment Dahl so admires).

Final flaw - Honestly, Dahl did not do enough explaining as to why democracy is worth striving for. To some, it may seem self evident but often they confuse the concept of civic equality, freedoms of speech and press, and material equality with democracy. In fact, Dahl gets these confused constantly. Especially in the last chapter where, when he asks "is democracy desirable?" he answers "Yes, civic equality is desirable" but fails to answer the question asked.

All in all, this book is insightful, challenging, and worth reading (It won't take long). Just make sure you take Dahl's comments at face value. It may be good to counter some of the arguments with those found in the Ant-Federalist papers.

Some other reviewers have citicized this book with the non-sequitur that the US is "a republic, not a democracy." A republic is simply a representative democracy. The Founders feared a system in which a majority of the population could empower their representatives to do whatever the majority so pleases. To prevent such a nightmare they proposed limits on government power. Although they feared the unchecked will of the majority, they all agreed that the "will of the people" was a better source of power than any alternative. Anybody who recites from rote the "Republic, not a democracy" mantra to ward off any discussion of perfecting our form of government is forgetting that the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union", not "a perfect union."

That said, the question Dahl raises is why no other government in the world is quite like ours. He makes it clear that the Framers had good ideas, but suggests that other nations have improved on the excellent baseline model established by the Framers. That is a very reasonable proposition. Ironically, much of the innovation seen in other nations consists of solutions to problems that our Framers thought they had solved.

The Framers feared "faction", because blind partisanship is clearly a bad thing. Ironically, a failure to foresee and allow for the inevitable formation of parties has only exacerbated the effects of "faction." Dahl addresses the lack of proportional representation (PR), where each party gets seats in (at least one house of) the legislature in proportion to its share of the vote. The lack of PR leads to a two-party system. When you only have two parties, the inevitable result is rancor and polarization. Conversely, multi-party systems require coalitions, compromise, and negotiation. If the formation of parties in inevitable, I'd much prefer a system in which parties compromise and solve problems rather than demonize and obstruct.

Also, Dahl points out that the Founders feared a popularly elected President because (a) they believed no national figure would emerge and (b) they feared that if one did emerge he would be a strong-man. They also rejected a Parliamentary system because they wanted checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. However, the electoral college rapidly evolved into a crude accounting scheme for national campaigns, and Dahl explores the historical background to this evolution. He also points out that we now have Presidents with "mandates." This suggests that maybe our Executive branch is TOO independent.

Finally, Dahl addresses the (sady, unchangeable) malapportionment of the Senate. He points out that revered advocates of limited government (e.g. Madison) opposed equal Senate representation for each state. In fact, Madison accused the small-state representatives of seeking power rather than liberty. Conservatives should be wary of any system that gives a small group huge power. Dahl argues persuasively that protection of minorities should look at ideological or political minorities, not minorities based on which state a person happens to live in. Ultimately, people should be free to organize politically with whomever they agree, and not be forced to organize their interests along artificial lines drawn by governments.

Overall, Dahl does an excellent job of pointing out the areas where our Constitution needs a fine-tuning, and he brilliantly demolishes the political ancestor-worship underlying opposition to his critique.

I was enthralled by this book the instant I saw it, because it asked hard questions about American democracy that I've never heard from anyone else before. I would summarize this book as a short course in comparative democracies (sort of like comparative religions), discussing the similarities and differences between democracies that work.

The main question that Dahl asks is, "Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?"

Chapter 3 is the most interesting part of this book, where Dahl compares the American constitution to other democratic governments. "[A]mong the countries most comparable to the United States...not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it. Why?" Dahl explores this question with respect to the American bicameral chambers (House and Senate), unequal representation (in the Senate), judicial review, the electoral system, two-party systems, and the presidental system. He discusses how the American system works versus other democracies, comparatively pointing out strengths and weaknesses.

Overall I found this a stimulating, well-written, and deep book that looks at fundamental questions about American democracy that few people seem to be asking. Unlike other authors, however, he doesn't do this in a pessimistic manner, criticizing the American system needlessly. It was more of "we've done pretty well all things considered, but we can do better, and we should strive to do better."