Voting Systems Flashcards
who was registered to vote? what does this show?
All adult male citizens were eligible for registration in the citizen lists. Roman Citizens were registered on the citizen lists in accordance with how much property they owned and where they lived/ owned property. This shows that although only men were allowed to gain citizenship and thus vote, Roman Voting was still not close to being democratic
who was excluded mainly? (men)
The Roman Voting system was more liberal than Athens still not all men were allowed to vote, mainly foreigners were excluded who had gained through imperial expansion.
how was the right to vote extended?
However, the rights of citizenship were gradually extended to include all adult freeborn men in Italy, and then – from Caesar’s time onwards – to certain towns and citizens in the provinces. More men were allowed the opportunity to vote within Rome and therefore more people were gaining a voice on the political platform.
were women ever given the right to vote? why?
By the end of Caesars reign, most citizens had the right to vote, however, that right was still kept out of the reach of women who, although were given citizenship, were believed to not be able to handle an involvement in politics and their talents were better suited for the household and made the citizenship mainly for marital status rather than the benefits being a citizen of Rome had.
was the system complicated? in what way?
The way in which the Romans voted was extremely complex, vexing classicist’s for many years. Although there were several different assemblies, it is important to understand that they all consisted of more or less the same people but divided up into different groups according to different principals.
how is this problematic?
This was very problematic as it ended up that the wealthier population had more of a political influence than everyone else as they had more centuries as voting was done by centuries rather than an individual vote therefore it made no difference how many or few people came to vote as it would hold the same outcome.
how could it be argued that the system was democratic?
However, those who had more at stake had a greater predominance; the voting system favoured those who had more input and factors at steak within the Roman Common Wealth. Therefore, their voting assemblies were more influential on the political stage than those who had fewer stakes.
what does this show?
This shows that although the wealthy had a much greater and influential role within politics, they had more to lose and thus should have a greater role than those who have nothing to lose.
how did having to vote in person affect different people?
Every eligible citizen had to come to Rome to vote in person, this was obviously easy enough for those who lived in Rome, or for the wealthy who had bought up most of the country side within east travelling distance of Rome. It became quite impossible for people who lived in the further away districts in Italy to travel to Rome in order to cast their vote.
why is this more or less democratic?
This is less democratic as it clearly favours the citizens who could afford to live in Rome or the countryside surrounding it and those who were a few hundred miles away were left to fend for themselves.
how was this problem tackled?
However, their services were payed as any losses during their travel (i.e. their lost wage) would be given back ensuring there was no real loss during the democratic process. This allows people from all over Italy to gain at least the opportunity to have a say in what goes on in their country.
how common was bribery? who partook the most?
Bribery within the voting system was very common. Ambitious politicians saw nothing wrong in using money to either buy votes or to bribe citizens to vote for or against bills presented to the Comitia Tributa. Many politicians were, of course, wealthy men who could afford the bribes.
did less wealthy politicians also partake?
But even the less wealthy politicians were prepared to put themselves in debt in order to achieve their purpose, in the hope that they would be able to make enough money in order to repay their debts.
how does this show the inequalities within the voting system?
The fact that no one saw the issue surrounding bribery highlights the inequalities within the voting system as it was not based on who was the best and deserved the position they were voting on, it was based on who had the most money, or who was confident enough to go into crippling debt in order to get what they want, leaving those who could not afford it behind.
what could one argue in defense?
However, one could argue that by using a lot of money to bribe votes out of people, shows incentive and that they really care about the position they are running for, therefore giving the role to the person that really wants it rather than the one that is merely in it for the status and pay.
