After perusing through the six assigned datasets for the paper and the readings for Week 7 it becomes clearer that all datasets designed to measure democracy emphasize contestation and participation/inclusiveness. Munck refers to these as the attributes of democracy. Where all the datasets differ is in what components of the aforementioned attributes they use to signal the strength and weakness of these components among countries. For example Munck under participation highlights vote, fair voting, suffrage and parties access to money while Coppedge identifies adult suffrage as the component attribute of inclusiveness. In an attempt to explain comparison among measures of democracy these components of attributes for democracy provide the basis for discrepancies on labeling countries as either democratic or non-democratic. Munck points to the balance between parsimony and dimensionality as the key proponent in choosing component attributes and how dataset designers weigh those two factors. This week’s readings led me to analyze the component attributes of the datasets used in the first paper to see if the datasets that produced different results did so because of the component attributes they chose to best represent contestation and inclusiveness/participation; as well as civil liberties in regards to the case studies in my first paper.