The aim of this article is to discuss the political role which the people played in the popular assemblies in the Middle Roman Republic. For this, three questions are to be posed: 1) how many plebeians could attend the plebeian meetings and the popular assemblies? 2) What was legally permitted to the plebs in the popular assemblies? 3) How could the plebeians express their opinions in contio and comitia except by formal attendance and voting? In sum, the plebs could participate in political decision-making by exerting their own civil rights, although they were limited from a modern point of view. They could show their political opinions by attending popular meetings and assemblies from the whole Italy, or by casting a vote in the popular assemblies, or by expressing their opinions by means of shouting, mainly in the contiones. The plebeians were not a powerless and passive element in Roman politics. But I do not intend to accept Millar’s strong suggestion that the Roman political system should be seen as a democracy rather than an oligarchy. The passage of the Hortensian legislation in 287 BC allowed the plebeian assemblies the legal force, but it did not cause the radical change in the Roman constitution. From a modern point of view, there were still elements to restrict the poplar participation in Roman politics.However the traditional opinions that plebeians’ participation into assembly was structurally limited by overemphasizing the institutional aspects should be modified. We must seek a new way to address the Roman politics in the middle Republic so that future discussions about it can be a progressive one. In other words, instead of focusing on whose political powers were greater in the plebeian assemblies in the middle Roman Republic, we should rather focus on the network of political conversations between the parties. In this sense, Nicolet’s statement “the Roman system implied a certain degree of communication, not all of it one-way, between the masses and the political class” is worth noting.