• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

roman republic and the american republic

Master PO

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A few days ago, i stated that the u.s government was based on the Roman Republic, of course i got the usual answer of no, its not, to which i stated that some people do not read history and do not under what the founders created. So i going to post now and show how the founders created our government based on the roman model which as a mixed government, and i will provide links to information and some information itself to prove what i am talking about.

first, let's look at Rome, which was a mixed government which is not a democracy, what is mixed government? below is a definition of what it is.

[FONT=&quot]Mixed government is a form of government that incorporates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, the issues are decided variedly, for instance some issues are determined by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person. The idea of mixed government is treated as an antecedent of separation of powers. It is also known as a mixed constitution.

[/FONT]https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mixed-government/

as you see from the definition mixed government is a government which deploy 3 elements of different kinds of government which are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

Polybius is known as the father of mixed government and he is referenced in the federalist 63 by the father of the American constitution James mansion
[h=4]Polybius and the Roman Republic[/h]The Greco-Roman historian Polybius influenced Enlightenment philosophers and American government.His writings were centered around the idea of the separation of powers and mixed government in the Roman Republic[FONT=Arimo, sans-serif].[/FONT]

https://seventhcoalition.wordpress....cal-western-influence-in-american-government/

[FONT=Arimo, sans-serif]how did the roman republic employ mixed government? how is it used?

mixed government is system of how officials of government are elected and who those officials represent in government as to create a separation of powers[FONT=Arimo, sans-serif] [/FONT]and in the creation of laws.[/FONT][FONT=Arimo, sans-serif]

Rome consisted of the 1.centuriate assembly,2. the senate and the 3.roman assemblies, as compared to the u.s. with its 1.electoral college, 2.the senate and 3. the house of representatives

[/FONT]1. Centuriate assembly of Rome used citizens, and not elected representatives voted before each assembly. As such, the citizen-electors had no power, other than the power to cast a vote. Each assembly was presided over by a single Roman Magistrate, and as such, it was the presiding magistrate who made all decisions on matters of procedure and legality. Ultimately, the presiding magistrate's power over the assembly was nearly absolute.[FONT=Arimo, sans-serif]

[/FONT]2.The Senate of the Roman Republic was a political institution in the ancient Roman Republic. It was not an elected body, but one whose members were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors.

3. The Roman Assemblies[FONT=&quot] of the roman republic are the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lower class of people[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was the plebeian class. Today, if something is plebeian, it is of the common people.

in the Roman government the [/FONT]Centuriate assembly is considered the monarchy part of government, the [FONT=Arimo, sans-serif]senate the aristocracy part and the Roman assemblies considered the democracy part[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
American government was for the most part a mixed government until 1913 when the 17th amendment changed it.

in american government of the founders, the electoral college is a combination vote of the people and the states combined, in early mercian the states put forth people as electors in races within the state, and the electors were voted on by the people depending on the state, by district or state wide elections. today each party puts forth electors which which are chosen by the vote of the people for president within each state.

before the 17th amendment to the u.s. constitution the senate was not elected, it was appointed like the roman republic, but by the state legislatures who instructed the senators how to vote on federal legislation to ensure the federal government could not violate the separation of powers.

the house of representatives is the only body which was closest to democracy, because it was elected by the people, however in early America the only people who could vote was determined by state laws, and they were based on land ownership and property taxes.

The Presidency is the element of the monarchical office. The United States Senate is the representation of the aristocracy. The House of Representatives is the element of democracy, representing the people. The Senate was originally intended to be the representative body of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, as well as a representation of state's interests, as a corporate entity, in the Federal Government. Madison said, "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress." Senators were appointed by their respective State legislatures and were not voted on by the people. The Senate was originally designed to check the House of Representatives and the Presidential office and be the "guardian of the constitution

in federalist 40 James madison her father of the constitution states that american created a mixed government.

[h=1]The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained[/h][h=3]New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:[/h][FONT=&quot]THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.[/FONT]

As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
 
Last edited:
REASONS FOR CREATING A MIXED GOVERNMENT, WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE....BELOW

in order to discuss the concept of the mixed constitution in antiquity,5 it is important first to understand what is meant by a simple constitution. In Book VI of his Histories (6.4.6-11; cf. 6.3.5), the ancient Greek historian Polybius outlines three simple forms of constitution--each categorized according to the number of its ruling body: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many).6 According to the historian, these three simple constitutions each degenerate, over time, into their respective corrupt forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and mob-rule) by a cycle of gradual decline which he calls anacyclosis or “political revolution” (6.9.10: politeiw=n a)naku/klwsij; 6.4.7-11; cf. 6.3.9). 7

For monarchy, he claims, inevitably degrades into tyranny. Tyranny is then replaced by aristocracy, which in turn degrades into oligarchy. Oligarchy then is overthrown by democracy, which ultimately falls into its own corresponding distortion, mob-rule (or ochlocracy). In Polybius’ analysis, the cycle then starts up again (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) since anarchy inevitably creates a void that some new demagogue will fill.8 'Anaku/klwsij, the sliding from one form of constitution into another, is unavoidable because of the inherent weakness of each simple form of constitution.9

The catalyst for the decay in each simple form, Polybius says (6.7.7), is hereditary succession--the automatic handing down of the privileges of a particular form of government to future generations without their ever having to internalize for themselves the discipline necessary to maintain those privileges.

Each of the three simple forms of constitution serves well enough at its inception, since founder kings arise out of their very excellence of character, aristocracies (by definition at least) form from the noblest of society, and democracies too embrace the highest ideals at the outset. The problem lies not with the initial impetus that forms these governments but with the fact that they each suffer entropy, or internal decay.

Polybius explains his theory in fuller detail, describing the mechanism by which hereditary succession weakens the state. When the crown is inherited generation upon generation, kings are no longer then chosen by excellence of leadership but by accident of birth. When monarchs are born to privilege, they no longer have any incentive to serve the state (since their privileges are no longer tied to their performance as leaders). They eventually expend their daily energies in merely fulfilling the desires of their own appetites. Having become arrogant and self-serving, the last in the line of tyrants is pushed aside by those who are close enough to the throne to notice his corruption, namely the members of the aristocracy (Polyb. 6.8.1).

They, in turn, serve the state well initially. After all, these were the nobles so offended by the king’s excesses that principle drove them to take action against him. Unfortunately, here again, when the grandchildren of these nobles inherit position, they are ill equipped to handle the power of rule (since they were born to privilege and identify less and less with the problems of the common man). The aristocracy then degrades proportionally by each generation into an oligarchy, just as the kings degenerated into tyrants (6.8.5). The oligarchs then are banished or killed by the people, who finally assume the responsibility of ruling themselves.
 
The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefits (6.9.5). Eventually individuals arise among them who, seeking pre-eminence, cater to the creature comforts of the masses, thereby hoping to win their favor. People sell cheap those liberties that have cost them nothing personally. Once the masses accept these demagogues, the cycle of tyranny begins again. This is the cycle Polybius calls a)naku/klwsij.


Polybius believes that Republican Rome has avoided this endless cycle by establishing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of all three forms of government at once: monarchy (in the form of its elected executives, the consuls), aristocracy (as represented by the Senate), and democracy (in the form of the popular assemblies, such as the Comitia Centuriata). In a mixed constitution, each of the three branches of government checks the strengths and balances the weaknesses of the other two. Since absolute rule rests in no single body but rather is shared among the three, the corrupting influence of unchecked power is abated and stasis is achieved.


Polybius is not alone in his praise of mixed government. Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero all stress the supremacy of a mixed constitution and the need for separation of powers within the government.


Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers
 
Master PO said:
The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefits (6.9.5). Eventually individuals arise among them who, seeking pre-eminence, cater to the creature comforts of the masses, thereby hoping to win their favor. People sell cheap those liberties that have cost them nothing personally. Once the masses accept these demagogues, the cycle of tyranny begins again. This is the cycle Polybius calls a)naku/klwsij.


Polybius believes that Republican Rome has avoided this endless cycle by establishing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of all three forms of government at once: monarchy (in the form of its elected executives, the consuls), aristocracy (as represented by the Senate), and democracy (in the form of the popular assemblies, such as the Comitia Centuriata). In a mixed constitution, each of the three branches of government checks the strengths and balances the weaknesses of the other two. Since absolute rule rests in no single body but rather is shared among the three, the corrupting influence of unchecked power is abated and stasis is achieved.


Polybius is not alone in his praise of mixed government. Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero all stress the supremacy of a mixed constitution and the need for separation of powers within the government.


Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers
Click to expand...

Okay, cut to the chase. What's your point?
 
Grand Mal said:
Okay, cut to the chase. What's your point?
Click to expand...
my point is simple

that the was u.s. is modeled on the roman republic until 1913

the u.s. was not created a democratic form of government and that democracy and a republic are not the same.

the u.s. was created a republican form of government.

democracy is based on the group, because it is collective

a republic is non collective and based on the individual.

as James Madison states in federalist 63 , while the people can vote collectively for members of the house, the collective capacity of the people is excluded in American government because the senate is not in the people hands.

The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.
 
Master PO said:
my point is simple

that the was u.s. is modeled on the roman republic until 1913

the u.s. was not created a democratic form of government and that democracy and a republic are not the same.

the u.s. was created a republican form of government.

democracy is based on the group, because it is collective

a republic is non collective and based on the individual.

as James Madison states in federalist 63 , while the people can vote collectively for members of the house, the collective capacity of the people is excluded in American government because the senate is not in the people hands.

The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.
Click to expand...

The Roman 'republic' excluded everyone except hereditary aristocracy. Romans were vassals, subjects with no rights until the collapse of Imperial Rome. How did the US fit that model before 1913, and what happened in 1913?
 
Grand Mal said:
The Roman 'republic' excluded everyone except hereditary aristocracy. Romans were vassals, subjects with no rights until the collapse of Imperial Rome. How did the US fit that model before 1913, and what happened in 1913?
Click to expand...

romans had rights, even the apostle Paul was a roman subject and had roman rights.

in 1913 the u.s. constitution was changed to making senators elected by the people instead of being appointed by the state legislatures.

this removed the states legislatures control over the senate and states representation in the u.s government.

by doing this American moved away from a republican form of government to a more democratic form of government which the founders warned us about, because democratic forms of government are unstable.

this allows the senate to be lobbied and the federal government to violate the separation of powers
 
Master PO said:
romans had rights, even the apostle Paul was a roman subject and had roman rights.

in 1913 the u.s. constitution was changed to making senators elected by the people instead of being appointed by the state legislatures.

this removed the states legislatures control over the senate and states representation in the u.s government.

by doing this American moved away from a republican form of government to a more democratic form of government which the founders warned us about, because democratic forms of government are unstable.

this allows the senate to be lobbied and the federal government to violate the separation of powers
Click to expand...

Paul wasn't a subject of the republic. Nor was Christ.
Is it your point that the Roman republic ruled over people who had no participation in their government? Thats true. Is it your point that that was somehow a good thing?
 
Grand Mal said:
Paul wasn't a subject of the republic. Nor was Christ.

Paul was a roman subject and a christian.... you need to read after Paul sees Jesus on the road to Damascus

Is it your point that the Roman republic ruled over people who had no participation in their government? Thats true. Is it your point that that was somehow a good thing?
Click to expand...

no that Rome in its republic had its elected officials put into power 3 different ways with the Assembly being the peoples direct avenue of election
 
Master PO said:
... the u.s. was not created a democratic form of government and that democracy and a republic are not the same....
Click to expand...

Democracy and Republic are not the same - in the same way that Big and Heavy do not refer to the same things (though something can be both).

A democracy refers to who rules (Democracy means - the rule of the people)
A republic refers to the way a head of state is chosen

The first three words of the US Constitution are: "WE THE PEOPLE"

The USA is a Republic because the head of state is elected - it is a Democracy because the people elect the head of state and the legislature.

Specifically the USA is a Representative Democracy (hence the name of the lower house in Congress)


...the u.s. was created a republican form of government....
Click to expand...

Despite what was written back in the 18th century - the founding fathers were wrong. A Republic is NOT a form of government.

A Republic can be constitutional (where the rule of law is respected) or a republic can be a brutal dictatorship.

This is why we call the USA a Constitutional Republic to distinguish it from the dictatorships like the People's Republic of China, the old USSR, North Korea etc etc...


...democracy is based on the group, because it is collective

a republic is non collective and based on the individual....
Click to expand...

Democracy is based on the PEOPLE

A Republic is determined by how the head of state is chosen.


...as James Madison states in federalist 63 , while the people can vote collectively for members of the house, the collective capacity of the people is excluded in American government because the senate is not in the people hands....
Click to expand...

Just like the UK
Where the people vote for members of the lower house (House of Commons) but cannot vote for members of the upper house (House of Lords)

The USA is more of a democracy than the UK (which is a Constitutional Monarchy, and also a democracy)


Did the Roman Republic have a written Constitution ?

In your opinion is a written constitution necessary to form a republic?
 
Master PO said:
no that Rome in its republic had its elected officials put into power 3 different ways with the Assembly being the peoples direct avenue of election
Click to expand...

Paul was a subject of Imperial Rome, not the Roman republuc. The republic ended when Julius Caesar became dictator. On his assassination Imperial Rome under Emporer Augustus (if I remember right) was born. I think there was something like a republic after Imperial Rome died but my memory fails me.
If you think the Roman republic was worthy of being emulated by a modern liberal society you're probably alone.
 
Rich2018 said:
Democracy and Republic are not the same - in the same way that Big and Heavy do not refer to the same things (though something can be both).

A democracy refers to who rules (Democracy means - the rule of the people)
A republic refers to the way a head of state is chosen

The first three words of the US Constitution are: "WE THE PEOPLE"

The USA is a Republic because the head of state is elected - it is a Democracy because the people elect the head of state and the legislature.

Specifically the USA is a Representative Democracy (hence the name of the lower house in Congress)




Despite what was written back in the 18th century - the founding fathers were wrong. A Republic is NOT a form of government.

A Republic can be constitutional (where the rule of law is respected) or a republic can be a brutal dictatorship.

This is why we call the USA a Constitutional Republic to distinguish it from the dictatorships like the People's Republic of China, the old USSR, North Korea etc etc...




Democracy is based on the PEOPLE

A Republic is determined by how the head of state is chosen.




Just like the UK
Where the people vote for members of the lower house (House of Commons) but cannot vote for members of the upper house (House of Lords)

The USA is more of a democracy than the UK (which is a Constitutional Monarchy, and also a democracy)


Did the Roman Republic have a written Constitution ?

In your opinion is a written constitution necessary to form a republic?
Click to expand...

the constitution was created by the states, not the people, the founders argued that issue but left it we the people.

the vote for the president is non democratic, and so was the appoint of senators, only the house was anything close to democracy and that had state qualifications requisite, in order to vote, as stated by the constitution, the u.s. was created a republican form of government not a democratic form.

James Madison in federalist 10 tells you its a republican form and not democratic form

no one can get around these facts
 
Grand Mal said:
Paul was a subject of Imperial Rome, not the Roman republuc. The republic ended when Julius Caesar became dictator. On his assassination Imperial Rome under Emporer Augustus (if I remember right) was born. I think there was something like a republic after Imperial Rome died but my memory fails me.
If you think the Roman republic was worthy of being emulated by a modern liberal society you're probably alone.
Click to expand...

that's true, however under both..... each had rights, Paul was a roman citizen

if you think democracy is a good form of government you are wrong, because it is unstable, only mixed government has stood any test of time
 
Master PO said:
A few days ago, i stated that the u.s government was based on the Roman Republic, of course i got the usual answer of no, its not, to which i stated that some people do not read history and do not under what the founders created. So i going to post now and show how the founders created our government based on the roman model which as a mixed government, and i will provide links to information and some information itself to prove what i am talking about.

first, let's look at Rome, which was a mixed government which is not a democracy, what is mixed government? below is a definition of what it is.

[FONT="]Mixed government is a form of government that incorporates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, the issues are decided variedly, for instance some issues are determined by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person. The idea of mixed government is treated as an antecedent of separation of powers. It is also known as a mixed constitution.

[SIZE=3][/FONT][/COLOR][/B][url]https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mixed-government/[/url]

as you see from the definition mixed government is a government which deploy 3 elements of different kinds of government which are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

Polybius is known as the father of mixed government and he is referenced in the federalist 63 by the father of the American constitution James mansion
[/SIZE][h=4][SIZE=4]Polybius and the Roman Republic[/SIZE][/h][SIZE=3][COLOR=#383838][FONT=Arimo]The Greco-Roman historian Polybius influenced Enlightenment philosophers and American government.His writings were centered around the idea of the separation of powers and mixed government in the Roman Republic[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Arimo, sans-serif][COLOR=#383838].[/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]https://seventhcoalition.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/classical-western-influence-in-american-government/[/url]

[FONT=Arimo, sans-serif]how did the roman republic employ mixed government? how is it used?

mixed government is system of how officials of government are elected and who those officials represent in government as to create a separation of powers[COLOR=#ff0000][FONT=Arimo, sans-serif] [/FONT][/COLOR]and in the creation of laws.[/FONT][FONT=Arimo, sans-serif][COLOR=#383838]

Rome consisted of the 1.centuriate assembly,2. the senate and the 3.roman assemblies, as compared to the u.s. with its 1.electoral college, 2.the senate and 3. the house of representatives

[/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#333333][FONT=raleway]1. C[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#383838][FONT=Arimo]enturiate assembly of Rome used [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=raleway] citizens, and not elected representatives voted before each assembly. As such, the citizen-electors had no power, other than the power to cast a vote. Each assembly was presided over by a single Roman Magistrate, and as such, it was the presiding magistrate who made all decisions on matters of procedure and legality. Ultimately, the presiding magistrate's power over the assembly was nearly absolute.[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Arimo, sans-serif][COLOR=#383838]

[/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial]2.The [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial]Senate[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial] of the [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial]Roman[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial] Republic was a political institution in the ancient [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial]Roman[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT=Arial] Republic. [B]It was not an elected body, but one whose members were appointed [/B]by the consuls, and later by the censors.

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#383838][FONT=Arimo]3. The [B]Roman Assemblies[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#444444][FONT="] of the roman republic are the[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#444444][FONT="]lower class of people[/FONT][FONT="] was the plebeian class. Today, if something is plebeian, it is of the common people.

in the Roman government the [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][COLOR=#333333][FONT=raleway]C[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#383838][FONT=Arimo]enturiate assembly is considered the monarchy part of government, the [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Arimo, sans-serif][SIZE=3][COLOR=#383838]senate the aristocracy part and the Roman assemblies considered the democracy part[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Have you ever watched Senator Byrd's lectures on Rome?

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbIWLYiU6gg&list=PL1E1633114E0E358F"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbIWLYiU6gg&list=PL1E1633114E0E358F[/URL]
Click to expand...
 
Master PO said:
51 yrs in the senate and member of the KKK clan
Click to expand...

He was in his youth... but he later called that his worst mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. They're the price of wisdom.

My point is that Senator Byrd knew his Roman history (keep in mind that those 14 lectures on the Senate floor were completely from memory) and he agreed with a lot of your points.
 
Cordelier said:
He was in his youth... but he later called that his worst mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. They're the price of wisdom.

My point is that Senator Byrd knew his Roman history (keep in mind that those 14 lectures on the Senate floor were completely from memory) and he agreed with a lot of your points.
Click to expand...

he carried water for the DNC, if he would not have not, he would have been condemned, a republican who claimed to make a mistake would never be forgiven
 
Master PO said:
he carried water for the DNC, if he would not have not, he would have been condemned, a republican who claimed to make a mistake would never be forgiven
Click to expand...

Forgive him... don't forgive him, that's up to you. The way I figure it, though, when a man sees fit to admit his wrongs and ask forgiveness, that ought to be enough - even if it's just for his own peace of mind. That holds true no matter what his political stripe.
 
Cordelier said:
Forgive him... don't forgive him, that's up to you. The way I figure it, though, when a man sees fit to admit his wrongs and ask forgiveness, that ought to be enough - even if it's just for his own peace of mind. That holds true no matter what his political stripe.
Click to expand...

it would be nice if people were treated according to their merits, but it does not happen
 
The Roman Republic was an admixture of theocracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy. They certainly had none of the grand ideas of equality reflected by the Preamble and 14th Amendment of our Constitution. Roman social structure consisted of foreigners, slaves, ex-slaves, free persons, Latin colonists, and Roman citizens each with their own package of rights and privileges or denial of same. Roman citizens were further subdivided into Equestrians (the very rich), Patricians (the nobility), and Plebeians (the common man) - class distinctions which dictated political rights and eligibility for public offices.

As you bring up the subject of voting - the Roman model was block voting. Roman citizens were divided into voting blocks based upon social class and geography with further parsing based on age for Equestrians and Patricians to guarantee they had the greatest number of blocks. The majority vote within each block constituted 1 vote overall. The votes of Equestrians and Patricians were taken and counted first and no further votes were counted once a clear majority was identified. So as long as the interests of the very rich and the Roman nobility were in alignment, and they were the vast majority of the time, their votes were the only ones that mattered.

Another, often overlooked, facet of this was that votes could only be cast in the City of Rome. The Roman Republic, in all of its vast territorial “holdings” was more-or-less just a patchwork of self-governing vassal and tributary States operating under their own forms of government, laws, and customs. Even when they got around to creating provinces and appointing Governors in the later years of the Republic, their role was really only to guard the territory from barbarian incursion, maintain order, and secure whatever remittances Rome required for the privilege of being conquered. There was no meaningful Roman civil or political infrastructure anywhere outside of Rome and we don’t see the sort of transformative integration of Roman terroritories until the Imperial period.

The distances involved meant that the vote had probably already taken place by the time you heard of some piece of legislation or election that might interest you and even if you had the time and money required for the months long journey in the hope that this would be one of those extremely rare occasions when your vote was even counted. For perspective, by the time of Augustus, there were 45-50 million people living in the Roman Republic only 4 million of whom were Roman citizens and only perhaps 1 million of those citizens living in Rome - possibly fewer with voting rights if these counts included women.

So what all of this that meant for the institution was that only a tiny fraction of the population and even citizenry could ever exercise that right. To be a Roman citizen abroad, which is to say anywhere outside the city of Rome itself or at least within a reasonable distance in ancient terms, meant basically nothing and there was no recourse for the violation of the rights you were supposedly entitled to. Indeed, the famous phrase “I am a Roman citizen” came from the lips of a Roman citizen as he was illegally crucified by the Roman Governor of Sicily.

Overarching all of this was the Roman religion. Any action on the part of the State that could be associated with divine displeasure rendered that action, be it some sort of legislation or military endeavor, illegal to pursue. Reading entrails was a common method of divining the will of the gods in these matters. As was the interpretation of omens and, when particularly stumped, consultation with the Sibylline Books (a collection of prophecies spoken by the god Apollo through the Oracle at Dardanium). As an interesting aside, the token co-consul Marcus Bibulus claimed to have witnessed bad omens in his opposition to the reforms and legislative agenda of Julius Caesar. Perhaps he was right.

For nearly 500 years the man who would be king was practically a dead man walking. Why the Romans suddenly embraced one man rule under Augustus was a question asked even by Ancient Roman historians and one we’ll never really have an answer for. But perhaps we can surmise that the Romans came to view it as the only viable solution for generations of social unrest, political instability, civil war, and teetering on a knife’s edge of anarchy. So let us indulge for a moment in the fantasy that the United States is somehow modeled after or inspired by the Roman Republic. What does it tell us that the Roman experiment failed and the acquisition of empire ultimately necessitated an emperor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom