Also... E Archer, It's interesting to note that when Aristotle wrote this there was no question about the absolute definition of what was good or moral. Only after Machiavelli redefined virtue in "The Prince" did people begin to alter the metaphysical realm by redefining morality for themselves (mostly to justify self-advancement rather than striving for the good of all of society). Today the argument over the subjectivity of good is rampant but I think you would find it a difficult task to interpret any of the ancient or medieval philosophers (Machiavelli is more early modern) as not accepting virtue or morality as absolute.

David, Aristotle isn't suggesting that this is a good idea. Later on in "Politics" he emphasizes the need for moderation. "For if they [the masses] shared in the greatest offices, it would not be safe, since, on account of their injustice and unwisdom, they would do wrong in some things and go wrong in others. If, on the other hand, they were given no share and had no participation in office, it would be cause for alarm." In fact, Aristotle doesn't even think democracy is the best choice of government. Rather, he seems to suggest that the best of the three good regimes (of which democracy is not one) is polity. Perhaps you realize this and are just reaffirming it?