0

Apology. I don't get why Books or articles on whether constitutional conventions are “rules meant to ensure the ultimate supremacy of the” electoral body? is closed? What "details or clarity" do you need?

| |
3

Requests for books or articles are not a good fit for Stack Exchange in general.

  1. Stack Exchange is generally not a good website for questions where the best answer is a matter of opinion. Which book or article is "the best" to answer a given question? That's a matter of opinion.
  2. Stack Exchange aims to be a repository for knowledge. Not an index for where more knowledge can be found. When someone has a question, then we want to answer the question on the website. We don't just want to link to off-site sources which might become outdated or even disapper from the Internet altogether.

In order to make the question more on-topic, you could try to edit your question. Rewrite it to not ask for articles or books. Tell the community what you don't understand about the quotation. Show us your thought process so far. What do you think it could mean? Is there a word in it you don't know the meaning of? Then ask the community to answer your question directly.

| |
0

It wasn't clear to me if you were asking about books/articles about those concepts in general, or about references explaining what Dicey was saying. The former topic is too broad: almost any book about democracy, majoritarianism, constitutions etc. seem to fit. As for the latter... I answered your other q with some quotes from some references that delve on Dicey's views, so in that sense the question asking for references [just about what Dicey is saying] is redundant (now).

| |

You must log in to answer this question.