ate legislation.
             Though Aristotle believed that in a city most of the inhabitants should be of similar situation, e.g. not enemies barred from like minds by servitude and or other issues, he also acknowledged that there were definite classes of people, some who understood how to governed and others who understood only how to be governed.
             The result is that the latter do not know how to rule but only how to be ruled like slaves, and the former do not know how to be ruled in any way at all but only how to rule as masters. So a city of slaves and masters arises, not a city of the free, and the first are full of envy while the second are full of contempt. These things are at the furthest remove from friendship and political community, for community is a thing of friendship (people do not want to share even the road in common with enemies). The city aims at any rate to be composed as much as possible of equals and similars, and this is true above all of those in the middle. Consequently, this city -- composed of those elements from which we say the city is naturally made up -- must be best governed. (191)
             A second note in regard to the vote of the former slaves, as was granted (by law) in the 15th amendment is Aristotle's ideas on the correct manner in which voting should be conducted, clearly according to a rank system, so the masses could not undermine the wise and well determined goals of the elite, in this case a polity.
             Selection by lot from among those previously elected is indeed common to both oligarchy and democracy, but to require those who are better off to attend the assembly, to vote for rulers, and to do whatever else there is of a political nature, while leaving the others free, is a feature of oligarchy. It is also oligarchic to try to draw the majority of rulers from the well-off and the greatest offices from the class with the highest assessments. 51 He also makes the election of the council oligarchic. For a...