User:Ifly6/Elections in the Roman Republic

Elections in the Roman Republic
This page is a soft redirect.

Division of the comitia centuriata per Grieve 1985. The comitia centuriata was reformed some time between 241–16 BC from its Servian form. The number of centuries in the first class fell from 80 to 70. How the second through fifth classes were divided into 100 centuries is not entirely clear.

Reverse of a denarius minted by Lucius Cassius Longinus in 63 BC, depicting a Roman citizen casting a ballot into an urn.

In the Roman republic, elections were held for every major magistracy annually and were "one of the cornerstones of Roman republican government". Elections were conducted before two assemblies (Latin: comitia): the centuriate and tribal assemblies. The centuriate assembly, made up of centuries divided by wealth and age, elected the senior magistrates: those with imperium (the consuls and the praetors) and the censors. The tribal assembly, made up of tribes grouped by geography or inherited, elected all other magistrates. Plebeian tribunes and aediles were also elected by the tribal assembly.

The formal electoral process started with an announcement by the prospective presiding magistrate of an election day, typically in July. Candidates, which had to be of the upper census class of equites, then professed their candidacy to that magistrate. On the day of the election, the voting unit – centuries or tribes – would be called in an order to give their votes. Citizens voted in person for their candidate and the unit registered one vote for each open post (eg for the two consuls a century would vote for two candidates). Once a candidate received a majority, 97 centuries or 18 tribes, he won and was removed from the contest. Once all posts were filled, elections ended and all centuries or tribes that had not voted were immediately dismissed. If nightfall came before elections were completed, the entire process had to restart, typically on the next legislative day.

There were no political parties in the republic. Candidates campaigned largely on their own personal virtue, personal or family reputation, or gifts distributed to voters. Reflecting the unpredictability of elections, bribes given to voters in the form of money, food, and games were a common and burdensome campaign expense. Regardless, those with a family reputation in politics (ie the nobiles) – and a family name that could be recognised by the voters – regularly dominated electoral results.

Roman elections, while extremely important for political life because no legislation could be passed without the initiative of a magistrate, were not representative of the citizenry. The malapportionment of the comitia centuriata weighted the 193 centuries, each of which received one vote, strongly towards the old and rich. The comitia tributa gave each of the 35 tribes, which was not divided explicitly on wealth, the same vote; however, because all public affairs were conducted in person, poorer people from the countryside unable to take the time off to travel to Rome were unable to exercise their rights. Moreover, while all freedmen became citizens when manumitted, they were all confined to the four "urban" tribes. Scholars have estimated, from the size of the voting spaces, that between 30,000 and 70,000 citizens could have participated; and in the late republic, no more than 12 per cent of citizens could have participated.

After the fall of the republic and the establishment of the Roman Empire, elections – throughly dominated by the emperor's influence – initially continued. However, during the reign of Tiberius, the power of nomination was transferred to the senate. Then on, with a short interlude under Caligula, all magistrates were nominated in a list that was then confirmed pro forma by an assembly. Over time, this too was abolished. Elections at the municipal level, conducted under bylaws which were generally modelled on the republican constitution, however continued.

Procedure

During the late republic, all elections took place in the ovile, which in imperial times was rebuilt in marble as the rectangular saepta Julia (in red).

Elections customarily took place around the same time each year. After Sulla's constitutional reforms, this was normally in July (then called Quintilis). A proclamation was issued by the magistrate who would oversee the elections in a public meeting – a contio – which was memorialised in writing and posted publicly.

Roman religion permeated this process and elections could not be held on days which were reserved for religious business (such as the dies nefasti, unlucky days, reserved for purification). After the lex Caecilia Didia in 98 BC, a trinundinum – three market days (market days occurred every eight days) – was observed between the announcement and taking place of elections. Prior to the election itself, auguries also had to be taken to screen for inauspicious omens. Moreover, all elections had to be conducted within a single day prior to nightfall.

After a public prayer calling on the support of the gods for the Roman people and those who were to be elected, the magistrate instructed the citizens to divide (descedite quirites) and to vote (ite ad suffragium). Citizens then reported to their relevant division and presented themselves to officials who would record their vote.

Comitia centuriata

Further information: Comitia centuriata

The comitia centuriata elected the consuls, praetors, and censors. The 193 centuries always convened outside Rome on the campus Martius. Reforms intervened in the third century BC to link the number of centuries to the number of tribes. Specifically, the first census class which had eighty centuries was reduced to seventy; this created one junior and senior century – members divided by age – for each of the thirty-five tribes. However, the resulting division of centuries for the second through fifth classes (their number did not change) is not known.

Prior to those reforms, when the consul ordered the centuries to divide and vote, the eighteen equestrian centuries were first to vote. After the reforms, the first to vote was the centuria praerogativa, selected by lot from the junior centuries of the first class. This century's result was immediately announced and was widely seen as an omen on the election: Cicero notes that this result secured the election of at least one of the consuls. Roman religion regularly interpreted chance emerging from lot as divining the will of the gods. The result from the prerogative century had religious significance; it also served a political purpose by randomising results – minimising divisions within the oligarchy – and nudging the remaining centuries to vote accordingly.

After the prerogative century, the remaining junior centuries of the first class voted, followed by the first class' senior centuries and the eighteen equestrian centuries. After those eighty-eight (88) centuries voted, the second class was called. Because the first class, equestrians, and second class made up a majority of voting units, if they all agreed on who should be elected, all posts would now be filled and voting would then end. Only when these three upper divisions disagreed – a rare occasion which only occurred when there were many highly-competitive candidates – did the lower classes, called in rank order, vote at all.

Comitia tributa

Further information: Comitia tributa

The comitia tributa elected all other magistrates, including the aediles, plebeian tribunes, quaestors, and military tribunes. While there has been made a distinction between a comitia tributa called by the normal magistrates that includes patricians and a concilium plebis called by plebeian tribunes of plebeians only, it is not clear whether this distinction mattered. Regardless, both operated under the same procedure and were differentiated only by the presiding magistrate.

The traditional meeting place of an electoral tribal assembly was the Forum – near the rostra and comitium – or the summit of the Capitoline Hill near the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. It is not known when exactly these electoral assemblies were moved to the campus Martius, but it was certainly after the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC. After the move, the voters were there divided into their tribes by wooden fencing and rope.

The first tribe to be called, the principium, was selected by lot among the thirty-one rural tribes. Prior to the move to the campus Martius, the tribes then voted in a sequence set by lot. However, after the move, the tribes then all voted simultaneously. It it not known whether there was an sequence of voters within each tribe. While all tribes voted simultaneously, their results were announced in an order determined by lot: this continued until a candidate received the votes of 18 tribes, a majority. Once the number of candidates corresponding to the number of open offices had been elected, all remaining votes were discarded.

Elections, however, to the post of pontifex maximus were different. He was not elected by the whole Roman people. Under the presidency of a pontifex, seventeen tribes – one less than a majority – selected by lot then voted under the same procedure. Between 104 and the dictatorship of Sulla, and then after 63 BC, this was also extended to all priesthoods.

After the election

Magistrates were elected for a specific term. Winners of elections which took place before that term started became magistrates-designate; winners of elections within the term itself assumed office immediately either because elections could not have been held previously or because the previous officeholder was dead. Most magistracies took office at the start of the new year which after 153 BC was set to be 1 January.

However, before they could take office

COURTS

Moreover, for those magistrates with imperium, a further vote was necessary before the comitia curiata. During the republican period, this assembly, which was theoretically made up of thirty curiae into which all Roman citizens were assigned, was a pro forma affair. Instead, the entire people were symbolically represented by thirty lictors who would in all cases ritually vote through a lex curiata de imperio bestowing the power of command on the magistrate as it had been in the days of the kings.

EXPAND

Candidature

Candidates had to be members of the equestrian order and have served ten years of military service. This military service requirement, however, was largely ignored by the late republic. Candidates also were required to not have been convicted of any crimes, not currently be the subject of pending legal proceedings, and show three generations of free (non-slave) ancestors.

Candidates also had to be eligible, of course, for the office they were standing for. This took the form of a specific and sequential order of posts, the cursus honorum ("course of honours") which was prescribed by law with minimum age requirements. The first version of a law to that effect was the lex annalis by Lucius Villius dated by Livy to 180 BC. This first law required that someone wait, at a minimum, two years between magistracies and set minimum ages for the consulship and praetorship. Requirements were restated by Sulla's lex annalis in 81 BC, setting minimum ages for the quaestorship, praetorship, and consulship at 30, 39, and 42 years, respectively.

Candidature was professed to the prospective presiding magistrate (Latin: professio) some time before the election. Under the lex Caecilia Didia it seems this was immediately after the elections were announced. The professio had to be in person at Rome, though for candidates this was merely the start of the official campaign: candidates regularly started their campaigns well earlier to build support when the time came. If the candidate convinced the presiding magistrate that all requirements were met he was added to the list of candidates. There was a deadline for candidacy and after the list was finalised it could not be changed. There were also no write-in ballots: a vote for a person not on the list of candidates was discarded.

Campaigning

Propaganda cups of Cato (left) and Catiline (right). Cups filled with food were distributed to the people to build support for candidates.

The campaign itself was called the petitio. The main source on Roman campaigning is the Commentariolum Petitionis which is attributed to Quintus Tullius Cicero (younger brother of the orator and consul of 63). The main subject of Roman campaigns were personal factors relating to a candidate's personal merits and public image with comparison to negative traits of rival candidates. Politicians also cultivated the favour of various groups from different parts of society and made attempts to curry undecided voters.

At consular elections, because Roman elections were highly weighted towards the wealthy (ie timocratic), campaigns largely revolved around the elite and the top two or three census classes. However, candidates did seek the favour of less well-off citizens since they could serve to influence patrons in the higher census classes.

However, there were no political parties: "it is common knowledge nowadays that populares did not constitute a coherent political group or 'party' (even less so than their counterparts, optimates)". Ideological campaigns were generally frowned upon – the Commentariolum Petitionis in fact recommends avoiding state affairs entirely – but did occur sporadically: candidates occasionally proposed policies when standing for the plebeian tribunate or expressed opinions on military affairs as candidates for the consulship.

Successful candidates attempted to build name recognition from the start of their careers. One avenue for this was prosecutions in the courts. Politicians also attempted to have themselves elected aedile so to sponsor extravagant public games and spectacles to curry favour with the voting public. During the campaign itself, candidates wore a bright white toga (Latin: toga candida) and met voters in person in the forum while accompanied by large groups of supporters to build prestige. Without the right to call rallies or public meetings, which was the exclusive prerogative of the sitting magistrates, candidates would instead host political banquets providing food to the public or give away tickets to games or shows.

Endorsements were also of value. These came from family, personal friends, political allies (called "friends"; Latin: amici), and clients. Allies were those who shared outlooks and expected to collaborate on shared matters in the senate and other parts of public life; however, these alliances were many times short and fluid. Clients could sometimes be won, as in the case of Cicero, by defence in the courts. The role of family and ancestry was also very important: those with consular ancestors made reference thereto. While men like Sallust, Cicero, and Marius expressed some bitterness about the old aristocracy's advantages, the Roman voters and the electoral results – which returned the scions of a small number of powerful and prestigious families to the most senior posts – evidently reflected their importance.

Corruption

Fundraising was necessary since Roman campaigns were extremely expensive: candidates drew from their own fortunes, received support from friends or political allies, and also borrowed huge sums to finance their campaigns. There were no controls over political donations or fundraising in republican times. There were, however, limitations on what campaign funds could be used for: especially campaign events thought to be too luxurious. Laws were also passed to prohibit electoral bribery (Latin: ambitus) but this was not a prohibition of gifts or bribes per se; only gifts which cut across existing client-patron relationships were regulated.

Some scholars paint a picture of an effective market for votes where the fact that a single elector could vote in multiple elections in succession, "two consular candidates, eight praetorian candidates, and two curule aediles, not to mention quaestors and [plebeian magistrates]". This is a picture of cash bribes from candidates to voters – in 54 BC the centuria praerogativa was supposedly promised ten million sesterces if it would vote for two certain candidates – accumulating in the pocket of a voter after some twelve successive bribes along with free banquets, shows, event tickets, and food handouts paid from multiple candidates all paid for at each candidate's personal expense.

EXPAND

History

The development of Roman elections is not very clear, as is much of early Roman history. Sources on this early period, which were written by and for the nobiles (a class of elites defined by their repeated election to the highest magistracies), are anachronistic and unclear. Nor is it clear that the early republic had elections: the early republic in the fifth century might not have had any central state organisation to which magisterial elections could have meaningfully applied; nor is it concretely known whether Rome was governed in this early period by consuls or whether the divide between plebs and patricians so emphasised in the annalistic accounts was as absolute as commonly claimed.

Early elections and acclamation

The Latin vocabulary for elections and voting implies early voting was largely acclamatory, where the purpose of elections was to affirm popular consent for elite leadership choices. The earliest Roman assemblies were those of the comitia curiata which acclaimed the kings, predating the republic, by swearing an oath to obey the monarch and possibly banging weapons to signal their assent. The formal procedure of Roman elections reflects this archaic procedure and it is likely that during the early republic the magistrates merely designated successors and called assemblies so that the people could voice their approval.

This historical context meant that the power of the presiding magistrate over an electoral assembly was vast. Even after competitive elections with multiple candidates were introduced, magistrates had the ability to throw out voting results (though this was exercised rarely due to protest; a magistrate acting without support usually gave way). Moreover, the early republic saw the ability of the senate to interfere in elections: decisions of the assemblies required approval of the senate and it was not until the third century lex Maenia which required the senate to approve elections prior to their taking place rather than after their results were in.

While the Romans recognised three different popular assemblies, the comitia curiata, centuriata, and tributa, only the last two had much relevance under the classical constitution. All of the various comitia were believed to date back into the regal period. Competitive elections, marked by the creation of the combined patrician and plebeian elite which defined its self-worth in terms of repeated election to the magistracies (the nobiles), developed some time between 367–287 BC with the close of the struggle of the orders.

Reforms in the middle and late republics

The number of magistrates to be elected annually increased over time as the number of praetors, quaestors, and other minor magistrates rose. By the late republic, there were some forty-four senior magistrates elected every year. There were also major reforms in the way the elections were run.

The comitia centuriata was reformed some time between 241 and 216 BC, though probably also before 221 BC. The original Servian distribution of the centuries, where beyond the eighteen equestrian and five supernumerary centuries, the first class had eighty centuries while the remaining classes had twenty (except the fifth class with thirty) was abolished. Replacing it was a system which aligned the centuries to tribes, assigning two centuries for each tribe to the first class; the total number of centuries however remained the same. The other classes also likely received tribally-designed centuries but specific mechanism for how the 280 centuries of the second through fifth classes were transformed into 100 voting centuries is not known. One suggestion, brought by Theodor Mommsen and suggested by the tabula Hebana, is that each lower class received seventy centuries which were then combined by lot or custom into those 100 total voting centuries.

The rationale for the reform has been variously explained. Some have suggested that it was intended to more equitably distribute the centuries among the people; Others have denied its impacts. The most insipid explanation, however, would be an increase in the ruling class' voting power by taking its control of the tribes – where rural magnates enjoyed a substantial advantage – and mapping it directly onto the centuries as well.

The passage of the lex Villia annalis in 180 fixed minimum ages at which men became eligible to certain offices. By imposing a higher age requirement on the consulship, it also formally placed it at the top of the Roman magisterial order and likely reflected the full development of the cursus honorum ("course of honours").

The lex Gabinia passed in 139 BC required that votes in elections, which had previously been oral, be inscribed in small wax tablets. This replaced oral tallying done by election officials, who then on counted the tablets and tallied the votes afterwards. Concerns about pressure on voters seems to have remained regular through the 2nd century BC with legislation brought by Gaius Gracchus and Gaius Marius, 123–22 BC and 119 BC respectively, mandating secret ballot in courts and the physical separation of voters and crowds. Secret ballot was phased in to all assembly business by incremental legislation after 139 BC: the lex Cassia of 137 brought it to non-capital trials; the lex Papiria of 131 brought it to legislative comitia; and the lex Coelia of 106 brought it to capital trials. In 104 BC, secret ballot was also introduced for election to priesthoods.

EXPAND

End of elections

The emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14 – 37) de facto transferred elections to the senate.

Shortly after Tiberius' accession to the throne, candidates for the praetorship would be selected by the emperor and by the senate: the emperor would select four with the senate selecting the others. The candidates were then submitted en bloc to the comitia centuriata for ratification. By transferring these nominations to the senate, aristocratic competition became unmoored from popular support. Accordingly, prospective candidates cut back on expenditures for the expensive games and other festivals that had previously been necessary to win such support. For a short period under Caligula, the elections for praetor were transferred back to the people, to their benefit, as candidates again paid them attention and the people benefited from their electoral largesse. The added expenses proved unpopular with the senatorial elite, who forced a return to Tiberius' en bloc approach after Caligula's death.

By the later Roman empire, the comitia in Rome was irrelevant. The saepta Julia in Rome had by this point long lost any electoral capacity – it opened in 26 BC by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa and was shortly thereafter converted into a shopping centre – and the ability to appoint magistrates had long been transferred to the emperor. The formerly republican state of affairs was not forgotten, however. For example, one of the consuls of AD 379, Ausonius, in a speech thanked the emperor Gratian, remarking:

I have not had to endure the Saepta or the Campus, or the voting, or [their counting], or the ballot boxes. I have not had to press peoples' hands... I have no gone round the tribus, or flattered the centuriae, or had to tremble when the classes were called... I have not made any deposit with a trustee or agreed anything with a diribitor. The [Roman people], the Martius campus, the [equestrian order], the rostra, the [saepta], the senate, the curia, for me Gratian alone was all these things.

Popular participation

There is no hard evidence of turnout at Roman elections or legislative assemblies; what evidence is available is unrevealing because it is largely impressionistic. The limitations of the evidence are sufficient that it is not possible to prove or disprove that Roman elections saw high or low turnout. Evidence of low turnout is generally taken from the size of the voting spaces, which would imply total turnout of less than 60,000 if all voters had to fit within; whether this was a meaningful limit – for example, if voters could wait elsewhere until called to give their votes – is not known.

While all Roman citizens were afforded the theoretical right to vote, the Roman tribes and centuries wildly malapportioned those votes. Compounding this difficulty, the Romans made no attempts to increase turnout, requiring that all public business occur within or nearby Rome, an expensive and special difficulty for citizens who lived in Italy or even further afield in places like Gaul.

Moreover, these elections were extremely important in Roman politics. The power of the magistrates over legislative affairs during their terms in office was absolute. The assemblies when operating as legislative bodies had plenary authority but no right of initiative, creating all-powerful legislatures dominated entirely by the executive. Because of this structure, the election of magistrates is the most important aspect of how popular demands were translated into state action.

There are two general positions aligning to low and high turnout respectively. The orthodoxy is that the political structure of Rome's institutions created a small and pliant electorate ready to uphold the aristocracy by bestowing legitimacy in consensus rituals. The other, initially put forward by Fergus Millar, is that these institutions created a "Roman democracy" that saw the vast majority of citizens represented and politically engaged (if in a variable and imperfect way) at Rome.

Roman democracy

The "Roman democracy" thesis was proposed in the 1980s by Fergus Millar, emphasising the impact and importance of the voting participants in Roman electoral and legislative assemblies. This view was a reaction against the "frozen waste" theories of Roman politics which posited that the elections were largely pre-decided because votes were controlled by aristocratic families which were able to decide between themselves how to employ them.

Bibliography

Modern sources

• Beck, Hans; et al., eds. (2011). Consuls and res publica. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-00154-1. LCCN 2011017494.
  • Smith, Christopher. "The magistrates of the early Roman republic". In Beck et al. (2011), pp. 19–40.
  • Herulet, Frédéric. "Consulship and consuls under Augusts". In Beck et al. (2011), pp. 319–35.
• Broughton, Thomas Robert Shannon (1951). The magistrates of the Roman republic. Vol. 1. New York: American Philological Association.

• Cornell, Tim C (2022). "Roman political assemblies". In Arena, Valentina; Prag, Jonathan (eds.). Companion to the political culture of the Roman republic. Wiley Blackwell. pp. 220–35. ISBN 978-1-119-67365-1. LCCN 2021024437.
• Flower, Harriet (2010). Roman republics. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14043-8. LCCN 2009004551.
• Grieve, Lucy J (1985). "The reform of the "comitia centuriata"". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 34 (3): 278–309. ISSN 0018-2311. JSTOR 4435929.
• Gruen, Erich (1995). The last generation of the Roman republic (Paperback ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-02238-6.
• Lintott, Andrew (1999). Constitution of the Roman republic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926108-6. Reprinted 2009.
• Millar, Fergus (1998). The crowd in Rome in the late republic. Jerome Lectures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10892-3.
• Morstein-Marx, Robert (2021). Julius Caesar and the Roman People. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108943260. ISBN 978-1-108-83784-2. LCCN 2021024626. S2CID 242729962.
• Mouritsen, Henrik (2001). Plebs and politics in the late Roman republic. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511482885. ISBN 978-0-521-79100-7.
• Mouritsen, Henrik (2017). Politics in the Roman republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03188-3. OCLC 961266598.
• Paterson, Jeremy (2012). "elections and voting, Roman". Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.7196.
• Rafferty, David (2021). "Rural voters in Roman elections". TAPA. 151 (1): 127–153. doi:10.1353/apa.2021.0004. ISSN 2575-7199.
• Tatum, W Jeffrey (2003). Classical Journal. 99 (2): 203–216. ISSN 0009-8353. JSTOR 3298069.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)
• Tatum, W Jeffrey (2009). "Roman democracy?". In Balot, Ryan K (ed.). A companion to Greek and Roman political thought. Wiley. pp. 214–27. doi:10.1002/9781444310344. ISBN 978-1-4051-5143-6.
• Vishnia, Rachel Feig (2012). Roman elections in the age of Cicero: society, government, and voting. Routledge Studies in Ancient History. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-87969-9.
• Wiedemann, T E J (1996). "Tiberius to Nero". In Bowman, Alan K; et al. (eds.). The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69. Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 10 (2nd ed.). pp. 198–255. ISBN 0-521-26430-8.