Iran's obsession with Britain is quite bizarre, it's 2010 not 1910.
Also, wtf's up with caving into the kind of demand, that stuff is only gonna bite us in the ass in the end.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/30/iran-britons-baghdad-kidnapping
QuoteRevealed: hand of Iran behind Britons' Baghdad kidnapping
* Mona Mahmood, Maggie O'Kane, Guy Grandjean
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 December 2009 21.30 GMT
The five British men kidnapped in Iraq were taken in an operation led and masterminded by Iran's Revolutionary Guard, according to evidence uncovered during an extensive investigation by the Guardian.
The men – including Peter Moore, who was released today after more than two years in captivity – were taken to Iran within a day of their kidnap from a government ministry building in Baghdad in 2007, several senior sources in Iraq and Iran have told the Guardian.
They were incarcerated in prisons run by the al-Quds force, a unit that specialises in foreign operations on behalf of the Iranian government.
One of the kidnappers has told this paper that three of the Britons – Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec Maclachlan – were subsequently killed after the British government refused to take ransom demands seriously.
Last night it emerged that part of the deal that led to the release of Moore involved the handing over of a young Shia cleric, Qais al-Khazali, a leading figure in the Righteous League, which emerged in 2006 and stayed largely in the shadows as a proxy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's elite unit, the al-Quds forces. Khazali was last night handed over by the US military for release by the Iraqi government.
The year-long Guardian investigation can also reveal that:
• Moore was targeted because he was installing a system that would show how a vast amount of international aid was diverted to Iran's militia groups in Iraq.
• The bodyguards' bodies were eventually traded for the release of Iraqi prisoners.
• They had probably been dead for at least 18 months before three of their bodies were handed over earlier this year.
Moore, 37, a computer expert from Lincoln, and the four security guards were taken on 29 May 2007 from the Iraqi ministry of finance's technology centre in Baghdad. He had been a contractor working to install sophisticated software in the ministry to track down billions of dollars in international aid and oil revenues.
A group of up to 100 men entered the building and took the Britons, racing off into Baghdad traffic in a fleet of Toyota Land Cruisers. A sixth man – who the Guardian can reveal was Peter Donkin – was left by the kidnappers after he managed to hide under floorboards.
A former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member, speaking to this paper under condition of anonymity, said the extraordinary kidnap was masterminded by Iran. The man, a former major who worked for 14 years inside the Iranian organisation and claims to have taken part in kidnap operations himself, believes the hostages were held in two al-Quds camps in Iran – one known as Qasser Shiereen military camp, close to the Iraqi border crossing with Mehran, and a second camp known as the Tehran Pars, located near a salt lake north-east of Qom.
"It was an Iranian kidnap, led by the Revolutionary Guard, carried out by the al-Quds force," he said. "My contact works for al-Quds. He took part in the planning of the kidnap and he watched the kidnapping as it was taking place. He told me that they spent two days at the Qasser Shiereen camp. They then took them deep inside Iran."
This claim is backed up by a serving Iraqi minister with close links to Iran. "This was an IRG [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] operation," he said. "You don't think for a moment that those militia groups from Sadr City could have carried out a high-level kidnapping like this one."
A former intelligence chief at the Iraqi ministry of defence has also described to the Guardian how intelligence operatives followed the kidnappers as they took the hostages from a mosque in Baghdad's Sadr City to the Iranian border. "They were hooded and handcuffed, then the cars drove off in a new direction – they were headed towards the Iranian border," the intelligence chief said.
While the hostages were in Iran the kidnappers made sure those who took care of them were Iraqi nationals. "At all times they were surrounded by Iraqi voices. Everything was done to make sure they had no idea they were in Iran," said an Iranian source with knowledge of the kidnap.
The other Britons captured with Moore were all security guards. The bodies of Swindlehurst and Creswell were identified in June, followed by Maclachlan in September. McMenemy is also believed dead, although his body has not been returned. It is not clear where the men were killed. Their bodies were buried inside Iraq and information about their locations was traded for prisoner releases.
A Guardian report in July revealed evidence that Iraqi officials colluded in the kidnap of the five, and that one motive was to prevent millions of dollars of aid money from being tracked – including an estimated $18bn that had gone missing.
A former senior Iraqi intelligence chief claims the project Moore was working on would have laid bare exactly where all Iraq's money was going. He claims there was an Iranian link to the alleged financial cover-up. The Foreign Office said last night: "We have no evidence that the British hostages, including Peter Moore, were held in Iran. We are not in a position to say with any certainty where they were held during each and every single day."
The Guardian have a few larger articles on this. I'm sort of surprised the story hasn't got more play.
It's very 1980s really.
I'm just waiting for the British response, for the Empire to strike back!! :cool:
It seems to me that the new rulers of Iran (the revolutionary guards) will stop at nothing. Since nobody in the West is apparently willing to smack them down, this kind of things will likely increase - with more pusillanimity on our side - thus further paralyzing us.
Perhaps the islamofascists are right after all; we certainly make a fine effort at appearing weak and decadent - fully deserving to be trampled as a civilization. <_<
G.
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2010, 12:49:00 PM
I'm just waiting for the British response, for the Empire to strike back!! :cool:
Why would America get involved?
:P
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 12:55:23 PM
It seems to me that the new rulers of Iran (the revolutionary guards) will stop at nothing. Since nobody in the West is apparently willing to smack them down, this kind of things will likely increase - with more pusillanimity on our side - thus further paralyzing us.
As I say this isn't new and it's hardly 'stopping at nothing'. If anything it's a reversion. In Lebanon in the 80s they kidnapped scores of foreigners, mostly Americans and western Europeans.
Quote from: Octavian on January 06, 2010, 12:56:00 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2010, 12:49:00 PM
I'm just waiting for the British response, for the Empire to strike back!! :cool:
Why would America get involved?
:P
The US has never called itself an empire... unlike the ostentatious UK. :bowler: Though maybe the US went much further, gaining the label Super Power label. :showoff:
BUT THEYRE CHANGING LOOK AT TEH RIOTS AN STUFF
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2010, 06:44:33 PM
BUT THEYRE CHANGING LOOK AT TEH RIOTS AN STUFF
Any day now the Iranian govt is going to cave in to US and Euro niceness, and give up their plans for nukes, terrorism, helping to kill US/NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and all other mean and nasty stuff.
Quote from: KRonn on January 08, 2010, 08:08:58 PM
Any day now the Iranian govt is going to cave in to US and Euro niceness, and give up their plans for nukes, terrorism, helping to kill US/NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and all other mean and nasty stuff.
And then you will wake up, and smell the coffee!
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2010, 12:57:55 PM
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 12:55:23 PM
It seems to me that the new rulers of Iran (the revolutionary guards) will stop at nothing. Since nobody in the West is apparently willing to smack them down, this kind of things will likely increase - with more pusillanimity on our side - thus further paralyzing us.
As I say this isn't new and it's hardly 'stopping at nothing'. If anything it's a reversion. In Lebanon in the 80s they kidnapped scores of foreigners, mostly Americans and western Europeans.
Yeah, this reminds me of the Buckley affair. The hysteria over the fact that the Iranian zealots continue to be assholes (and predictions that their acts will "paralyze us") amuses me. Zealots have always been assholes, since the coin was termed.
A lot of lesser countries still have the odd image of Europeans as being evil moustache twirling villains.
With Iran picking on the the UK though I think its just them using us as a proxy for the US.
QuoteBUT THEYRE CHANGING LOOK AT TEH RIOTS AN STUFF
Yes, in the wrong direction.
Iran was changing for the better, it was democratic and despite having a lot of horrid religious baggage was moving forward. With the last election though....
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 10:47:16 AM
Iran was changing for the better, it was democratic and despite having a lot of horrid religious baggage was moving forward.
Stop posting when you're stoned, please.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2010, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 10:47:16 AM
Iran was changing for the better, it was democratic and despite having a lot of horrid religious baggage was moving forward.
Stop posting when you're stoned, please.
So you disagree. Why?
Becuase it was not changing for the better, it was not democratic, and it was not moving forward in anything except nuclear weapons programs.
In times like this I miss having someone like Maggie ordering retaliatory airstrikes.
Brown won't do it. He doesn't have balls (not counting the "Special Ed" ones, that is).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2010, 12:13:55 PM
Becuase it was not changing for the better, it was not democratic, and it was not moving forward in anything except nuclear weapons programs.
Not true.
The entire reason for last year's chaos was that the election fixing came so out of the blue. Iranian elections before hand have been pretty darn fair and democratic. It wasn't a democracy on a par with western nations due to the powers held by the religious authorities but there was a significant amount of democracy and it was real, not only on paper.
The country has been steadily modernising, its economy coming on very well; one of the world's true developing countries. The people becoming ever more secular modern. It was really looking like things were changing, the conservatives would steadily need to become less and less conservative to appeal to the people and the country would steadily change.
You make fun of people defending Iran by saying it was changing; well you don't see much of them around anymore, the situation has changed for the worse. Before the election however they were in the right.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 12:30:15 PM
Not true.
The entire reason for last year's chaos was that the election fixing came so out of the blue. Iranian elections before hand have been perfectly fair and democratic. It wasn't a democracy on a par with western nations due to the powers held by the religious authorities but there was a significant amount of democracy and it was real, not only on paper.
The country has been steadily modernising, its economy coming on very well; one of the world's true developing countries. The people becoming ever more secular modern. It was really looking like things were changing, the conservatives would steadily need to become less and less conservative to appeal to the people and the country would steadily change.
You make fun of people defending Iran by saying it was changing; well you don't see much of them around anymore, the situation has changed for the worse. Before the election however they were in the right.
You operate under the assumption that a handful of disorderlies from the election was some sort of populist groundswell. It wasn't.
A couple of molotov cocktails and a dead chick on a cellphone camera does not a democratic movement make.
Sucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2010, 12:32:53 PM
You operate under the assumption that a handful of disorderlies from the election was some sort of populist groundswell. It wasn't.
A couple of molotov cocktails and a dead chick on a cellphone camera does not a democratic movement make.
Sucker.
Did you read what I wrote? :unsure:
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 12:49:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2010, 12:32:53 PM
You operate under the assumption that a handful of disorderlies from the election was some sort of populist groundswell. It wasn't.
A couple of molotov cocktails and a dead chick on a cellphone camera does not a democratic movement make.
Sucker.
Did you read what I wrote? :unsure:
No. Promptly dismissed as Iranopologist bullshit. Sell your agiprop elsewhere, we're all stocked up here.
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 12:30:15 PM
...there was a significant amount of democracy and it was real, not only on paper.
Disagree. There was only as much democracy as the clerics allowed; the "rule of the people" was to choose between choices presented by the clerics.
That is classic "democracy in theory not practice."
QuoteThe country has been steadily modernising, its economy coming on very well; one of the world's true developing countries. The people becoming ever more secular modern. It was really looking like things were changing, the conservatives would steadily need to become less and less conservative to appeal to the people and the country would steadily change.
I agree with this, at least in the cities. The backlash in the countryside, though, that that which occurrs in all revolutions, made the modernization less real and complete than it looked to city-bound observers, though.
QuoteYou make fun of people defending Iran by saying it was changing; well you don't see much of them around anymore, the situation has changed for the worse. Before the election however they were in the right.
It is Seedy's schtick (and Neil's as well, for that matter). Schtick doesn't care about who is right. Just sit back and watch it. It is pretty funny, and Seedy does it pretty well.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 01:00:17 PM
Schtick doesn't care about who is right.
I don't write the schtick; the schtick writes me.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2010, 01:00:17 PM
Disagree. There was only as much democracy as the clerics allowed; the "rule of the people" was to choose between choices presented by the clerics.
That is classic "democracy in theory not practice."
Limited democracy is still democracy. Especially compared to what people imagined Iran was like and what its neighbours are like.
Yeah, the clerics vetted the candidates, but given how well the most left wingers allowed generally did its likely that if there wasn't the vetting process in place those deemed inappropriate wouldn't have got anywhere anyway.
Quote
I agree with this, at least in the cities. The backlash in the countryside, though, that that which occurrs in all revolutions, made the modernization less real and complete than it looked to city-bound observers, though.
True.
But a big part of Iran's modernisation has been massive urbanisation, as in Europe the power of the countryside will fade. Iran isn't there yet but in fully modern countries its the cities that ultimately matter (in the old world at least, the US is...odd)
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Limited democracy is still democracy.
:lol:
Don't stop believin'.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmilitary%2Fops%2Fimages%2Firaq-vote-form.jpg&hash=6588d8cde5e46ae743c514e985150ce181f31afd)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2010, 01:17:30 PM
:lol:
Don't stop believin'.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmiliy%2Fops%2Fimages%2Firaq-vote-form.jpg&hash=7ac238d6436d4add9b7da2baa3f46326f41defbe)
Don't be dumb.
Democracy, freedom, etc... isn't a flat yes or no. It comes in degrees.
Liberal western democracy > limited democracy > no democracy.
Iran was the 2nd. You are talking of the last (not that it comes into a flat, sort of and no either, its more complicated than that)
Quote from: Tyr on January 09, 2010, 01:22:32 PM
Liberal western democracy > limited democracy > no democracy.
Not in Iran's case. Using their "limited democracy" they promptly elected a parade of Islamonutters. Non-exile Iranians = massive fail.
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
Or a fabian tactic of the masses to appease the power thirst of the dictators. :bowler:
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.
God Bless America
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.
Great Britain was a democracy in 1812?
Quote from: citizen k on January 09, 2010, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.
Great Britain was a democracy in 1812?
Why do you think I still remember the statement?
As the limit approaches zero...
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.
Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.
:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.
Neither of them had a McDonalds :contract:
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
:o :o :o
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
Nonsense. Anybody who needed the vote had it.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
Ah, someone who has the answer! I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule). I know that Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had universal male suffrage by 1812, but not the limits in the other states, or how many people that affected. Since you know that in 1812 it as "too limited to count as a democracy," you must know the limits (at least loosely). What were they? Serious question.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AMI have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).
Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 11:15:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AMI have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).
Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?
After we give up on Reconstruction, I'm still not totally sure that it counts.
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 11:15:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AMI have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).
Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?
Obviously, suffrage is never "universal." Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.
But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states). All male
citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.
According to this article, several states excluded "paupers" in that time period.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228746
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.
According to this article, several states excluded "paupers" in that time period.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228746
Thanks. Not sure that this invalidates "democracy," but it corrects my own knowledge on the matter.
We still are no closer to the percentage of US male citizens excluded from the vote in 1812, though. In Britain, adult male suffrage before the 1832 Reform Act was about 8%, as I recall.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
Ah, someone who has the answer! I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule). I know that Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had universal male suffrage by 1812, but not the limits in the other states, or how many people that affected. Since you know that in 1812 it as "too limited to count as a democracy," you must know the limits (at least loosely). What were they? Serious question.
I'm afraid not :D
I was going simply by the restriction of the franchise to white male voters. The exclusion of women and (nearly all) black people tipped it for me. I'm vaguely aware of the other restrictions that have been mentioned but have no real knowledge of the details.
I'm interested in your statements that : "Obviously, suffrage is never "universal." Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.
But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states). All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think."
I think that if we apply that to Sparta back in 500BC then they were just as much a democracy as the USA........after all, all the male citizens of Sparta had the vote.
Which leads one to the question, how wide does the suffrage have to be for a polity to count as a democracy?
Incidentally the British 1832 Reform Act actually took the vote away from many people. Prior to the act there were some boroughs where all hearth-holders were allowed to vote, and all rural freeholders in the county constituencies with land in excess of 40 shillings in value (a large sum 1000 years ago but not so much by 1832).
To those who doubt Britain's being a democracy in early US history I always just point to the American revolution. They were bitching about not having seats in parliament like Brits in Britain did. If Britain were not a democracy there wouldn't have been that complaint. Not relevant to anyone here of course, just a generality.
QuoteWhich leads one to the question, how wide does the suffrage have to be for a polity to count as a democracy?
Pretty much anything, democracy isn't a flat yes or no tick box.
Assuming you mean a modern western liberal democracy though then I'd say it depends on the era.
Early 19th century Britain today would make Iran (before all this business of course) look like a bastion of freedom and democracy (only talking about the voting system. Crazy Islamic law not included.).
For its time however it was up there with the most progressive and free societies going with a political system to match.
If we're going strictly off modern standards then Britain would not have had an 'acceptable' level of democracy until 1928 when women got equal rights. To say though that Britain before that wasn't a democracy is silly/
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 01:37:18 PM
I'm afraid not :D
I was going simply by the restriction of the franchise to white male voters. The exclusion of women and (nearly all) black people tipped it for me. I'm vaguely aware of the other restrictions that have been mentioned but have no real knowledge of the details.
A, the restrictive definition of democracy. Rather a difficult line to draw, given that suffrage is never universal. It sure makes the argument that "no two democracies have ever gone to war" a lot easier to make if there have never been any democracies! :lol:
QuoteI'm interested in your statements that : "Obviously, suffrage is never "universal." Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.
But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states). All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think."
I think that if we apply that to Sparta back in 500BC then they were just as much a democracy as the USA........after all, all the male citizens of Sparta had the vote.
This was true of Athens, but I don't remember hearing of Spartan democracy. What did they vote on?
QuoteWhich leads one to the question, how wide does the suffrage have to be for a polity to count as a democracy?
Indeed. My own assertion would be that, if the voter roles are broad enough to reflect the wil of the people as a whole, and voting is only restricted by consideration of the needs of the voting itself, then one can have democracy without universal suffrage.
As John Adams predicted by in 1776, giving women the right to vote simply gave married women two votes and married men none!
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 01:44:07 PM
Incidentally the British 1832 Reform Act actually took the vote away from many people. Prior to the act there were some boroughs where all hearth-holders were allowed to vote, and all rural freeholders in the county constituencies with land in excess of 40 shillings in value (a large sum 1000 years ago but not so much by 1832).
True, but the 18432 Act unquestionably increased the suffrage and reduced the power of the rotten boroughs (one of which had something like seven electors and two MPs!)
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 03:40:42 PM
This was true of Athens, but I don't remember hearing of Spartan democracy. What did they vote on?
Laws proposed by the Council or Senate.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/educational/lesson1.html
Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 03:40:42 PM
This was true of Athens, but I don't remember hearing of Spartan democracy. What did they vote on?
Laws proposed by the Council or Senate.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/educational/lesson1.html
Okay, not really a "vote" as we know it, but more participatory than I had remembered. The "elected by life by the citizens" thing is actually even more democratic, and is also more participatory than I remembered - I had remembered them as being appointed for life by the kings and priests.
Yes, at first blush it seems ridiculous to link the Spartans and democracy; but they did elect both the Ephors and the Gerousia; whilst the "Kings" powers were somewhat limited. Perhaps the major undemocratic element was the Lycurgan constitution itself, which was more or less sacred and very difficult to adjust even when it led to very adverse results.
Aristotle would, I think, regard most of our modern "democracies" as having mixed constitutions; with monarchical, aristocratic and democratic features. So, for Britain, we have a monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I have read that the founding fathers of the USA incorporated some of Aristotle's ideas on these matters in their constitutional arrangements.........makes sense to me.