In 510 BCE the Romans christened their political system a respublica, literally a ‘public thing’. This might give the impression of an inclusive democracy, but the late Republican voting system was anything but inclusive and democratic, shrouded in exclusivity and foul play. So who could vote? And how could a magisterial candidate win their approval?
Voting was a privilege reserved strictly for adult male citizens – women, enslaved peoples and most freedmen were excluded – so this was largely the only demographic whose favour a candidate had to gain. Citizens voted in consular and other magisterial elections through two assemblies: the comitia centuriata and the comitia tributa. Much like the first past the post system that operates in the UK and USA, the majority of votes in an assembly determined how that assembly voted. The elite magistrates who presided over these assemblies had near absolute say in their proceedings, though, and as such were able to monopolise the voting system to ensure that the vote of the everyman held little political significance.
Patronage is often considered a dominant factor in Roman elections, allowing candidates to demonstrate their dignitas (worthiness) through the number of clients they possessed or an influential patron they were client to. There are obvious political advantages to boasting clients; a client is obliged to vote for his patron if he is candidate for magistracy as well as publicly endorse and campaign for him. In his Commentariolum Petitionis (Handbook on Electioneering), Marcus Cicero’s brother Quintus Tullius advises him to stress to his clients that he has never asked much of them before and has reserved their entire debt for this one occasion of an election. Despite its considerable influence, the influence of patronage on voting behaviour deteriorated towards the end of the Republic and forms of foul play accelerated.
Elections were often seeped in bribery and this practice is well recorded; perhaps most notably in 70 BCE when consulship-coveting Crassus entertained and feasted around 10,000 inhabitants of the tribe whose votes he sought. Though successful, electoral bribery did not function so simply as providing food or entertainment and in turn gaining the support of the urban plebs and thus winning the magistracy. As Andrew Lintott notes in his Constitution of the Roman Republic: the main function of bribery was not to better the lives or win the favour of the poor, but to win the favour of local principes and leaders. By distributing food and entertainment to the poor of a particular tribe would advance the reputation of local officials as benevolent benefactors of their poor. Established members of the tribe would appreciate this and thus offer the candidate their support.
A candidate’s social connections and reputation also heavily influenced their success in elections. The support of nobles or already established politicians could be a huge advantage for a candidate; being seen alongside successful and respected figures allowed their esteem to be transferred to the candidate. In the Commentariolum Petitionis, Quintus Tullius Cicero urges his brother to mobilise his personal connections in order succeed in being elected, particularly his links to noblemen. It was also important for a candidate to be seen with poor men in public so as to seem charitable; Robert Morstein-Marx supports this, claiming that the attendance of lesser men provided visual testimony to a candidate’s voting audience of his benevolence toward his social inferiors.
Perhaps surprisingly, the policy and political promises of candidates had much less influence over voting behaviour than the aforementioned factors. Progressive and transformative policies were not popular and values of moderacy were more appealing to voters. Quintus Tullius explicitly urges Cicero to avoid any overt political stances during his candidacy so as not to upset the delicate balance of support among the populace. This implies that political policy in fact mattered very little, and that votes were cast based on a man’s dignitas as per a conservative and long-established ideological doctrine. It then seems clear that a significant proportion of voters were at least disinterested in political policy, or at most had an overt revulsion to it.
In conclusion, if one wished to win an election in the late Republic, one would have to: be client to or patron of an influential persons; have the financial means to bribe urban plebs and tribe-presiding officials; utilise their social connections and build their reputation as benevolent to the poor; and refrain from expressing any overt political opinion. Simple...