The fall of Norm Coleman

[Conserative Morality]

Consuls were Senators, and the highest ranked ones as well.

Go back to Roman History 101, and don't come back until you can name every piece of equipment a Roman Legionnaire wore at his height, his nickname, the Senate's duties, all major offices, and what each one entails.

[Conserative Morality]

There were two Consuls, who ruled for a year and then another election or something happened.They ruled above the senate.Julius/Caligula/Little boots was dictator for six months, got syphilis, and then made his horse a senator.

*Twitch* CALIGULA was an EMPEROR, and he made his horse a CONSUL!

[Altergo]

So, a Consul is like a Emperor, but pays attention to the Senate?

[Farnhamia]

Consuls were Senators, and the highest ranked ones as well.

Go back to Roman History 101, and don't come back until you can name every piece of equipment a Roman Legionnaire wore at his height, his nickname, the Senate's duties, all major offices, and what each one entails.

Huh?

And yes, CM, Caligula was an emperor and so was able to name Incitatus to a suffect consulship (consulate? damn, late in the day). But by Caligula's time the rules were different.

[Conserative Morality]

Huh?

And yes, CM, Caligula was an emperor and so was able to name Incitatus to a suffect consulship (consulate? damn, late in the day). But by Caligula's time the rules were different.

Even during the Republic, Consuls were NOT Senators.

[Enphos]

Consuls were Senators, and the highest ranked ones as well.

Go back to Roman History 101, and don't come back until you can name every piece of equipment a Roman Legionnaire wore at his height, his nickname, the Senate's duties, all major offices, and what each one entails.

I don't see how my statement was wrong, Consul was the highest possible position to be elected to in the senate.

[Conserative Morality]

So, a Consul is like a Emperor, but pays attention to the Senate?

I'm afraid there is no cure for you. I'll arrange for the Legionnaires to pick you up later in the day for exile. No hard feelings?

[Conserative Morality]

I don't see how my statement was wrong, Consul was the highest possible position to be elected to in the senate.

They were not SENATORS, and therefore, could not be the highest ranked SENATORS.

[New Limacon]

True, but I think the voting system is more to blame than the voters. A system where you only vote for one person allows brouhahas like this or the 2000 presidential to happen as often as they do. (Which actually isn't that often. But still, it could be avoided.)

US presidential elections have only gone to the House twice (1824 and 1876), and only twice, in a two-man ran, has the winner of the popular vote not become president (1876 and 2000). So I think we're doing fine, thanks.

If you assume the guy who was elected without any trouble really represents the preferences of all voters. Who would have won in 1992 if people could vote for more than one person, or listed all of their preferences (not just the top)? Or 1860? Or any of the other times all candidates have received less than a majority of the votes?

[Allrule]

I don't see how my statement was wrong, Consul was the highest possible position to be elected to in the senate.

They were not SENATORS, and therefore, could not be the highest ranked SENATORS.

WE GET IT! WE GET IT! YOU DON'T NEED TO YELL ABOUT IT EVERY 5 SECONDS!

[Maineiacs]

We're getting a little off-subject here, gentlemen. This isn't supposed to be an over-the-top pissing contest about the Roman Senate. It's supposed to be an over-the-top pissing contest about the U.S. Senate.

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball.

[Conserative Morality]

WE GET IT! WE GET IT! YOU DON'T NEED TO YELL ABOUT IT EVERY 5 SECONDS!

Then don't push forward an uninformed point of view.

[Enphos]

I don't see how my statement was wrong, Consul was the highest possible position to be elected to in the senate.

They were not SENATORS, and therefore, could not be the highest ranked SENATORS.

Oh, I see, you're trying to distinguish between the two ranks, thanks for explaining that.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh, I see, you're trying to distinguish between the two ranks, thanks for explaining that.

No, I'm distinguishing between 'Senator' and 'Consul' two entirely different positions. Something you seem to be unable to do.

[Enphos]

Oh, I see, you're trying to distinguish between the two ranks, thanks for explaining that.

No, I'm distinguishing between 'Senator' and 'Consul' two entirely different positions. Something you seem to be unable to do.

Are you a descendent of Julius Caesar himself or something? Honestly, I'm sorry that I wasn't aware that Consul's weren't actually members of Senate.

[Conserative Morality]

Are you a descendent of Julius Caesar himself or something? Honestly, I'm sorry that I wasn't aware that Consul's weren't actually members of Senate.

Insofar as the President is not a member of the Senate... Yes. They weren't.

[Milks Empire]

Oh, I see, you're trying to distinguish between the two ranks, thanks for explaining that.

No, I'm distinguishing between 'Senator' and 'Consul' two entirely different positions. Something you seem to be unable to do.

Are you a descendent of Julius Caesar himself or something? Honestly, I'm sorry that I wasn't aware that Consul's weren't actually members of Senate.

GAIVS JVLIVS CÆSAR has no living descendants. His sister, on the other hand, has at least 8 million. JVLIA CÆSARIS is an ancestress of Charlemagne, who has at least 8 million living descendants.

[Allrule]

CM, read this :

We're getting a little off-subject here, gentlemen. This isn't supposed to be an over-the-top pissing contest about the Roman Senate. It's supposed to be an over-the-top pissing contest about the U.S. Senate.

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball.

[Farnhamia]

So, a Consul is like a Emperor, but pays attention to the Senate?

I will concede that the consuls did not have to necessarily have to be senators - I can't find anything that says they did - but they certainly became senators, members of the Senate, because they presided over that body.

Anyway, Alterego, you have to think about Rome as having two very distinct parts to her history. The Republic, from about 509 BCE, and the Empire, from about 27 BCE.

After the Kings were driven out, the Romans set up two chief magistrates, the consuls. They were elected and served a one-year term, and then governed a province (once Rome had provinces, that is). They could be re-elected, though not usually right away. The consulate was such a prize that it was guarded very jealously by the oligarchy of families that controlled the State. Don't be fooled by the annual elections, Rome never was a democracy. The elections were arranged so that the classes of voters who were sure to elect the "right people" always voted first and their votes always made the other classes' votes superfluous. It's true that some men were elected as novi homines, new men. Gaius Marius and Marcus Cicero are the most notable examples, but they were elected because the oligarchy opened its ranks to allow them in.

Once Octavian defeated Antony and became the sole ruler of the Republic, he was given a number of powers, including the right to veto any measure passed by the Senate. He was not given the power to nominate consuls by law (that I know of) but his prestige, his auctoritas, was so great that his nominees were always elected, as was he when he decided to run (Augustus served as consul fourteen times in all).

Now, the consulate was still a huge honor, and it became a way for the emperor to reward loyal followers (or chariot-pullers). A couple of men would be nominated to the office and take office on January 1st, serve for two or three months, then resign so the emperor could name a replacement, or suffectus. Sometimes there might be six or even eight consules in a year. It was especially cool to serve with the emperor as the other consul.

Anyway, the article on Roman society at Roman-Empire.net might be a good place to start reading.

Whew.

[Farnhamia]

CM, read this :

We're getting a little off-subject here, gentlemen. This isn't supposed to be an over-the-top pissing contest about the Roman Senate. It's supposed to be an over-the-top pissing contest about the U.S. Senate.

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball.

Yeah, yeah ... back on topic: Al Franken rules.

[Farnhamia]

True, but I think the voting system is more to blame than the voters. A system where you only vote for one person allows brouhahas like this or the 2000 presidential to happen as often as they do. (Which actually isn't that often. But still, it could be avoided.)

US presidential elections have only gone to the House twice (1824 and 1876), and only twice, in a two-man ran, has the winner of the popular vote not become president (1876 and 2000). So I think we're doing fine, thanks.

If you assume the guy who was elected without any trouble really represents the preferences of all voters. Who would have won in 1992 if people could vote for more than one person, or listed all of their preferences (not just the top)? Or 1860? Or any of the other times all candidates have received less than a majority of the votes?

I would expect that in 1860 Lincoln would have gotten the majority of the First Place votes, just as Clinton would have in 1992. Do you think voters would go, "Cool, dude, I can mix up my votes!"

[Geniasis]

So did Caligula appoint his horse because he was batshit insane? Or was he just fucking with the senate when he did that?

[Enphos]

So did Caligula appoint his horse because he was batshit insane? Or was he just fucking with the senate when he did that?

He was trying to show the senate that a horse could do a better job than them.

[Scolopendra]

This is not the time nor place to be talking about Roman society. I shall threadsplit then unlock.

EDIT: You know what? No. I'm not going to unlock this, because a link to a news story and an image macro does not any sort of post make. This is for debate. Use it for debate.