litical corruption. There was little danger that the Council could turn into a private preserve for the wealthy or influential because members served only one year: no man could a member two years in a row; and no one could serve more than twice in his lifetime (Ober 38). The Council of 500 prepared the agenda for each session of the Assembly. According to regular rules the Assembly would take up no issue not already investigated by the Council. Normally the Council made a recommendation to the Assembly as to the best solution of each problem.The two political bodies of Athens, the Assembly and the Council had rather different roles: the Council made proposals, which the Assembly could vote upon and amend. They also may have had somewhat different memberships. To get to the Assembly meeting one would have to come to Athens. Many Athenians lived fifteen or twenty miles out in the countryside (Demand 224). This would have presented quite a burden for those in the countryside. So, it is possible that those who lived in the city were over represented. The Council, though, was automatically geographically diversified. Cleistheness reform, which ensured that people from the countryside, at least had some say at that stage of deliberations.Cleisthenes may also have been responsible for the Athenian practice known as ostracism. Under this procedure the Athenians would vote once a year in a sort of negative election. The unlucky winner, assuming a minimum of 6000 votes had been cast, was sent into exile for ten years. The ostracized citizens property was not confiscated and he was not convicted of any crime (Demand 161). When the ten years was up he was free to return to Athens. The procedure was designed to prevent any one man from becoming too powerful. This could of course be abused and sometimes-good men were sent into exile, but it seemed to work well in the democracy of Athens.Once the Assembly had passed a resolution the executive branch ...
