Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: A Movie on Caesar (was re: New Movie)
From:	"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:37:27 -0000

Did you happen to see when it airs? I scanned through it but didn't
see it. This is so sweet, I have been waiting for another, more
acurate movie about a Roman hero to come out. I just hope it has the
excitement of Gladiator, I'd hate for it to come out something like a
documentary.

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Speaking of movies, here is a post I got from another list, from
Marcus
> Sentius Claudius:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Just to let you know that there is a new Film soon to be released
(for
> TV)
> on Julius Caesar ...
>
> Here are the details fresh from the net..
> (http://www.deangelisgroup.com/m33home.htm)
>
>
> SYNOPSIS
>
> Julius Caesar is an epic story set in magnificent, ancient Rome. It
will
> bring to life one of historyÕs greatest figures. The miniseries
will not
> only show Caesar as one of the greatest politicians, generals and
> orators to
> have ever lived. It will particularly tell of a man, of his early
days,
> of
> his formation and assent to power, of his ambitions, anxieties,
> weaknesses
> and of the three great loves of his life. As Caesar rises to fame,
his
> life
> is constantly at risk for high political reasons, and he is forced
to
> flee
> Rome when Sulla, the malevolent Roman dictator, threatens to execute
> him.
> Returning to the capital, with his citizenship restored for bravery
in
> battle, Caesar becomes famous for his amazing gift of public
speaking.
> He
> also becomes entwined in a great and ill-fated love story. In
defiance
> of
> SullaÕs wishes, he marries his true love Cornelia, who later dies
> tragically. CorneliaÕs death almost destroys Caesar, and, for years
to
> come,
> all his love is devoted to his daughter, Julia. Now concentrating
on his
> political career, Caesar champions popular causes and fights the
corrupt
> aristocracy that dominates Roman politics. He declares that, for the
> Empire
> to have real meaning, all of its subjects Ð of whatever race, creed
or
> color
> Ð should be offered Roman citizenship. His populist politics and
> unprecedented military victories raise Caesar to Roman Emperor. It
is
> towards the premature end of his life that Caesar, isolated at the
> pinnacle
> of power, finds love in his relationship with another of historyÕs
great
> leaders Ð Cleopatra. But, yet again, lasting happiness eludes his
grasp,
> and
> Roman politics lure Caesar away from Egypt. Now a mature man,
CaesarÕs
> attitude towards power, towards Rome and towards the Roman Senate
seems
> to
> have changed. Back in the capital city, powerful men begin to fear
the
> most
> powerful man amongst themÉ
> deAngelisPRESS
> Julius Caesar becomes a TNT miniseries from DeAngelis Group VIDEO
AGE
> INTERNATIONAL - April 20 2001
> New world order at MIP VARIETY - April 9 2001
> TNT DeAngelis hail "Caesar" THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER MIP TV 2001 -
APRIL 4
> 2001
> TNT and the DeAngelis Group Hail Julius Caesar MIPTV 2001 - Tuesday
> April 3
> 2001
> Giulio Cesare e Napoleone conducono gli affari Al MIP TV CINEMA &
VIDEO
> INTERNATIONAL - Aprile Maggio 2001
> Tre Imperatori per il video IL MESSAGGERO - Aprile 4 2001
>
> C O M M E R C I A L I N F O R M A T I O N
> Production year: 2001
> Co- Producer: Victory MultiMediaFond 11 & 12
>
>
> In association with: and
>
> Location: Malta / Eastern Europe
> A R T I S T I C G R O U P
> Director: An Uli Edel film
> Production designer: Francesco Bronzi
> Screenplay Writer: Peter Pruce
> Composer: Ruy Folgura
>
> Costume Designer: Simonetta Leoncini
> Casting: Jeremy Zimmerman
> E-mail: zimm--------ing@--------
> Executive Producer: Guido de Angelis, Lorenzo Minoli, Russell Kegan
>
> Producer: Paolo Piria, Giuseppe Pedersoli, Jonas Bauer for the
DeAngeli
>
> Vale
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa wrote:
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > I just read today that Martin Scorsese is going to direct a movie
> > about
> > Alexander the Great of Macedonia. I guess this is due to the box
> > office
> > success of Gladiator. The bad news though is that Leonardo
DiCaprio
> > is said
> > to be playing Alexander.
> >
> > C. Vipsanius Agrippa
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	StarVVreck@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:09:00 EDT

Salvete Novi Romani

<< 2. In the case of a vote on a lex, 97 of the 193 centuries must vote in
favor for the lex to be adopted.>>

I doubt that the creator of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
could have foresaw the ill effects of the strictness of this rider. Up until
that article in the lex, the rogatores could have interpreted whether to use
a majority of the voting centuries or a majority of the total centuries:

<<B. A vote or election shall be decided by a majority of the centuries.>>

Whichever best suited the rogatores own political ambitions. However with
such a strict article impeding interpretation, nonvoting and abstaining are
exactly the same as voting against. Simply removing B2 with an amendment
while keeping article B the same would solve this problem. Unfortunately
this could lead to power abuse, although our current Rogatores are good and
doubtlessly would not use it to their advantage, future Rogatores most likely
would somewhere along the line. The best solution to this problem would be
to amend article B. As you know Lobbyists in Macronations are the ones that
often themselves draft legislation and not the legislators themselves who
propose it to the Legislative body. So Ha! I'm your first lobbyist! Of
course I could be wrong about that. Anyway here's my draft:

Lex (Senator's Name Here) de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum

Paragraph V.B. of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum is hereby
amended to read as the following:

B. A vote or election shall be decided by a plurality of the centuries.

1. In the case of a magisterial election, candidates must receive votes
from a plurality of the 193 centuries in order to win.

a. In case of a tie, a new election shall be called within
30 days from the end of the current election.

2. In the case of a vote on a lex, a plurality of the 193 centuries must vote
in
favor for the lex to be adopted.

C. Votes may be tallied by automated means should the rogatores determine
such is preferable to, and at least as accurate as, a manual count.

D. Only the aggregate votes of the centuries shall be delivered to the
presiding magistrate; the votes of individual citizens shall be secret.

END LEX

Simply put the amendment above will make a Lex only receive most of the
votes. Abstaining and nonvoting will no longer count as Against. For a
measure to not pass it will require more Against votes than For votes,
whereas currently for a measure to not pass it simply requires for most
people to not vote at all. It will quite simply solve all our problems, well
... at least where the Comitia Centuratia vote is concerned. Changing the
requirements from a majority to a plurality makes the elections much more
fair and accurate to the wants of the people of Nova Roma. Whichever senator
decides to take this up, feel free to "fancy it up," after all it is just a
draft. I hope you all enjoyed being lobbied!

Vale,

Iulius Titinius Antonius


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] New Movie
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:10:18 EDT

I just read today that Martin Scorsese is going to direct a movie about
Alexander the Great of Macedonia. I guess this is due to the box office
success of Gladiator. The bad news though is that Leonardo DiCaprio is
said
to be playing Alexander.

C. Vipsanius Agrippa

Salvete
Well, actually Bruce MacQuarrey was set to direct. But Scorsese bumped him.
This project has been in development for 6 years. I read an early
treatment/sequence outline
back in '96. Actually Blondie is a dymo choice. Alexander was short,
headstrong, narcissistic and couldn't take direction at all. Who does this
remind you of? Talk about type casting!
Your scribe in Hollywood,
Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	Kristoffer From <from@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:58:51 +0200

StarVVreck@-------- wrote:
> B. A vote or election shall be decided by a plurality of the centuries.
>
> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, candidates must receive
> votes from a plurality of the 193 centuries in order to win.
>
> a. In case of a tie, a new election shall be called within
> 30 days from the end of the current election.
>
> 2. In the case of a vote on a lex, a plurality of the 193 centuries
> must vote in favor for the lex to be adopted.

Salve, Iuli Titini Antoni.

I applaud your initiative, but would like to make a small amendment of
my own to your proposal.

Simply put, remove the number "193" completely from the above segment,
and thereafter preceed every occurence of the word "centuries" with the
word "voting". This way, the legislation would be prepared not only for
future constitutional amendments, but also for the magisterial elections
and any future voting on a lex.

Here's the part, altered and ready:

> B. A vote or election shall be decided by a plurality of the voting
> centuries.
>
> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, candidates must receive
> votes from a plurality of the voting centuries in order to win.
>
> a. In case of a tie, a new election shall be called within
> 30 days from the end of the current election.
>
> 2. In the case of a vote on a lex, a plurality of the voting
> centuries must vote in favor for the lex to be adopted.

As you can see, this is nothing new, just clarifying your own ideas
somewhat, at least to me. ;)

However, now comes the tricky part; Let's say we all agree that your
amendment is a workable compromise, and a magistrate lets us vote on the
matter...the voting must be done, according to the constitution, in the
comitia centuriata, where the voting procedure is determined by the
precise lex we're trying to alter.

I think you see the problems, but I for one would like to at least give
this a try before the magisterial elections come along.

For a "last ditch effort"; A question to all those familiar with our
legislation:
Would it be possible to amend the constitution without involving the
comitia centuriata? What I had in mind was that in that case, a
different legislative body could remove the part of the constitution
stating that only the comitia centuriata may decide upon it's own voting
procedures. Then that same body could pass the above amendment, or
another with the same intent, without violating the constitution.

Off I ramble again, hopefully I'm making some sense this time. The Lex
Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum is an excellent piece of
legislation, but with our current amount of non-voters, parts of it must
be modified, at least temporarily, in my opinion.

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Senior Legatus Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Salve Marcus (Was Reenactment)
From:	"Marc Sarault" <marc_sarault@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:20:55 +0000

Salve Pompeia,

I think that in considering the size of the Provincia Canada Orientalis,
this territory should not be without a legion. I am sure that we could find
enough interest among the Citizens, without always having to take a trip
down south. As I get more informed and educated, I do plan to take on a
task this size in forming a Legio in the Provincia. Your comments...

Gratia

Marcus
Marc Sarault

>From: trog99@--------
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Salve Marcus (Was Reenactment)
>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:05:20 -0000
>
>Salve Marcus:
>
>I am pleased at your interest in Nova Roma, and I shall be in touch
>with you privately, about your involvement in the provincia.
>
>In answer to your question about a Legion in Canada Orientalis: as
>far as I have been able to detect, there is not.
>
>However, we had a recent reenactment gathering this past August at
>Fort Malden outside Windsor, in which reenactment Legion XXIV of
>Pennsylvania participated. In addition, there were a couple of
>legionaries from Detroit.
>
>We plan to do this again next year; it's usually the first weekend in
>August, so if you want to do the Roman thing, mark your calendar :)
>
>Please keep well,
>Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
>Nova Roma
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:48:16 -0700 (PDT)

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
SNIP
>
> I must, at this time, express my disgust with the
> fact that not one Citizen
> in nearly half of our Centuries even bothered to
> cast a vote on these
> matters, which dealt with amending our very
> Constitution itself! To every
> Citizen who failed to vote, I say you should be
> ashamed of yourself. Thanks
> to your apathy, my little daughter, Julia Vedia,
> will not be able to enjoy
> the fruits of Citizenship.
>
> Shame on you.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>

I Disagree that it's just apathy. A major part of the
problem is we have been deceiving ourselves about how
many citizens we really have.

>From the numbers that were posted 129 citizens voted.
I don't think the problem is that only 12% of our
citizens bothered to vote, it's that we really don't
have the thousand plus citizens that we claim in any
realistic sense of the word.

Most of the 87 Centuries that returned no vote did so
for one simple reason. They had NO citizens assigned
to them, all they had was names of former citizens who
left without bothering to resign. There wasn't anybody
to vote.

We don't know how many citizens will even pay taxes
next year. It's very possible that we could have fewer
than 192 taxpayers, and that will mean that even with
one man Centuries we won't have enough citizens to
fill all of them.

We just have to admit that we don't have enough active
citizens to man 193 Centuries, and we need to reduce
the number of Centuries until we have far more active
citizens than we do now.

I Would suggest that we have 1 Century for each 5
Taxpaying citizens, with the number rounded off to the
nearest odd number to lessen the chance of a tie. Then
the number of Centuries can gradualy raise until we
reach the historic number of 193.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Propraetor America Austrorientalis

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	AW: [novaroma] Reenactment
From:	"solinvictus" <caiustarquitius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:39:30 +0200

Ave, Marce!

I really think I misunderstood you. But I often hear the arguement I was
referring to and that you obviously know. I agree with your further
statements.
Unfortunately the book will not be translated as far as I know. Try to get a
copy and find someone speaking german to let it have translated for you.
Last decembre Dr. Junkelmann brought out a book dealing with roman helmets
out of the private collection of Axel Guttmann/Berlin. There are some not
yet known helmet types in there. If you are intersted in those I can scan
them for you and send them. Anyone else intersted, LMK.

Bonis nocet, qui malis parcit.

Vale, Caius Tarquitius Saturninus.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: jmath669642reng@-------- [mailto:jmath669642reng@--------]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2001 00:46
An: novaroma@--------; SodalitasMilitarium@--------
Betreff: [novaroma] Reenactment

Master Caius Tarquitius Saturnius;

My thanks for your book recommendation. Unfortunately I do not read
German. I will wait most impatiently for the translation!!!

As to your comment:

"---if the Roman's had this or that they obviously would have used it.
If you transfer it to Nuclear Weapons-----you see where you get."

I am afraid that statement is quite a leap from my carefully determined
and articulated message, as below:

"---there are those who believe that if the materials, technology, and
skills were available in the period being reenacted that the people of
that time, would have been much quicker to use those kinds of ideas
based on thier needs, than we are in the present day."

Therefore four things would be needed to consider carefully in this
instance:

materials / technology / skill / need.

additionlly there is the consideration that most Romans lived with much
less than we do, and ancient peoples are generally granted the ability
>from their situation that thier "needs" were satisfied in very unique
cases, that we today, would not normally concieve or think of. The
"Foxfire Books" of a decade or so ago, were certainly indicative of that
ability from the early American Mountain People, who used what they had
to meet their needs in hundreds of unique ways, and shared that
information with thier grand-children. This information filled a whole
series of publications and documents that speak to the very point that I
am making.

Man is a tool-making and tool-using animal, and his needs, ability,
materials, technology, and skills detemine his accomplishments in any
period that you care to mention. From Cro-Magnon Man to the present
day.

Since your "Nuclear Weapon Comments" requires three of the four items
above which were not available (materials, technology and skill) your
comment simply does not relate.

Any Carpenter who can turn out a luxerious reclining divan such as used
in the best villas of the Roman day, could certainly devise a folding
table.

Any metalsmith who could create a siver goblet of exquisite design and
beauty such as those found in various archaelogical finds, could
certainly design a simple brass lamp or dish.

Any sailor of the period who would have used an old sail or perhaps even
a specially designed awning (such as those used in the Colliseums) for
shade, might consider the use of sail material for field use, presented
with the need based on the request (demand!!??!!) of a senior officer.
The use of such material is not beyond the imagination to be used in the
field, or aboard ship to shade the temporary location of a senior
officer or magistrate.

I will admit that any such determination must be looked at with care and
with concern for what is being presented and for the period being
reenacted, and the four items previously mentioned should be very
carefully considered. However, there are some things that cannot be
controlled, for instance brass, iron and copper. It is simply
impossible to get those materials which were manufactured to the
standards of the Roman day anywhere in the world at the present time.
The smelting processes result in a better quality of material. This
technicak knowledge is used today in determining the authenticity of
archaelogical elements between the present day and the 16th century.
Blacksmith iron is only available in a very few places, and mild steel
normally is used in it's place for items like pilum heads and spear
points. Swords and knives which were tempered, were not done so in the
same manner at all as is done today, since the technology was not
available, and so we use today what we have, and do our best to make it
look authentic. A Sagum Cloak whose threads were made on a drop-spindle
and those threads then woven into a cloak would cost thousands today,
well beyond the ability of most reenactors to afford or to have made.

There must be some lee-way established, in order to make the reenactment
world a worthy activity, and yet not limit it to an exclusive group of
people whose funding is unlimited. I am equally sure that the rawhide
used in the binding of primitive tools is not the same rawhide that is
found in dog bones of today. However, the dressing of a cowhide into
rawhide at my villa is not possible with my facilities and skill.
Commercial rawhide manufacturers use different techniques and materials
than werre used in Roman Times. However, I have never had my rawhide
covered cane questioned in some 13 years of use in the reenactment
field. I am sure there are some people out there, like myself, who may
be aware of the difference, and those people are also aware, apparently,
of the problem of aquiring the "real stuff." When asked I tell people
that the materials, weapons, etc. is a reproduction based on museum
artifacts, and archaelogical findings. Everyone that I have ever talked
to in a reenactment event, understood this, when it was explained to
them, even small chldren.

As these findings change I try to keep abreast of them through reading
and through my renactment friends. However, this is all part of the
reenactment world, being as authentic as possible, having refrences for
the things that you do, say, or have, and in the last analysis being
very careful of your presentation within your ability, both financial,
verbal, and the attitude with which you portray your character.

I find that in 1st Person, my presentation of a British Officer of a
crack regiment, to the ignorant, deluded, Cabbage -Farming provincials
of the King's North-American Colonies is so impressive to some people
that the fact that I wear brass shoe buckles instead of silver, is not
at all noticed. Some have said that my portrayal of a Roman Senator has
some of that same "starchy" quality.

Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: New Movie
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:30:07 -0000

---
Salve Frater, Vipsanius et al............

I've got you figured out!!!! :)

You're JEALOUS..............yesssss, that's it.........!!!!

Pea green with envy...........!!!

Ahh Shucks, we girls love you to pieces too.........truly we do :)

Just because Leo is talented and attractive and idolized by millions
of women is NO REASON to get all worked up about him playing the part
of one of the world's most formidable and successful
conquerers............honest :)

I am sure anyone of you would play the part brilliantly, if only
afforded the opportunity to display your unique
abilities.......alas.............

Puleeze do not get your togas in a twist over this.

Oh, Po is in a teasing mood this morning :)!!!!!!!

~ ~
**
oo

In novaroma@--------, Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@--------> wrote:
> ave,
> Well I for one have a very strong dislike for
> leonardo...as bad as this sounds...i was hoping the
> mighty sea really would have gotten him in
> Titanic...personal choice and opinion...the guys just
> annoying to me
> quintus cornelius caesar
> --- T--------i f-------- Nyfain <rckovak@--------> wrot--------font>
> > That's not necessarily bad news, you know. Mr.
> > DiCaprio actually shows a lot of talent as an actor
> > (although, having 2 teenage girls, I find it very
> > difficult amid the swooning to discern this
> > sometimes LOL). I enjoyed his performances in The
> > Basketball Diaries & What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
> > And, makeup & camera angles can do a lot to alter
> > appearances, if the acting ability is there. And,
> > of course, a decent script. Which would be my
> > worry.
> > Valete,
> > Helena Galeria
> > I just read today that Martin Scorsese is going to
> > direct a movie about
> > Alexander the Great of Macedonia. I guess this is
> > due to the box office
> > success of Gladiator. The bad news though is that
> > Leonardo DiCaprio is said
> > to be playing Alexander.
> >
> > C. Vipsanius Agrippa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Digest Number 1675
From:	"Navarra Reid" <optabilis@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 06:36:47 -0600

Savete Omnes:

I haven't been able to keep up with reading of Novaroma digest (however, I
was a good little girl and voted), so I don't really know what the status on
taxes is. When do we have to pay? Is it still $12 U.S.? Is paypal the
only way to pay one's taxes?

Sorry if these questions, which have probably been asked a billion times,
are asked one more time.

Valete,

Appia Claudia Indagatrix
Materfamilias Gens Claudia
Legatus Regionis Agassis (Provinciae Canadae Occidentalis


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:04:12 US/Central

Salve Tite Octavi

> Would it be possible to amend the constitution without involving the
> comitia centuriata?

There's only one way to bypass the Comitia Centuriata in order to amend the
constitution. The Senate would have to appoint a dictator for the purpose,
which seems a little extreme at this point. Down the road, if we can't manage
to elect praetores, consules, or censores, it may be necessary. In that case,
though, the dictator could simply alter the lex, rather than the constitution.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:14:13 -0400

Salvete;

Given the obvious failings of the new system for voting in the Comitia
Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout (resulting in a vast number
of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes by default), I would
like to propose the following solution. However, I should point out that the
current system is in fact historically accurate and quite workable (assuming
that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this suggestion in the spirit
of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater:

Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to register any valid votes,
non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. Otherwise, the rules as
they currently exist remain in effect.

This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is conditional; if only
comes into effect if the voting turnout is particularly low and allows us to
keep our more historical model when voting turnout is normal. Second, it
keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting the procedure used for
election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I chose 46 centuries as
the trigger because that is half of the number of centuries needed to carry
a clear majority.

Such a change would have to be made, of course, within the Comitia
Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we can enact it before the
general elections. I would also want to make such a change retroactive to
the last vote; I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed amendments
up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was evident in the last
result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the procedure. It would also
allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in the general election,
rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into the new year.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:17:03 -0700

Ave,

I must say that in my opinion I am against any retroactive legislation,
on principle. I would not support any legislation that would establish
the precedent of enacting retroactive provisions. That is a very
slippery slope that I am not willing to get on.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salvete;
>
> Given the obvious failings of the new system for voting in the Comitia
> Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout (resulting in a vast
> number
> of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes by default), I
> would
> like to propose the following solution. However, I should point out
> that the
> current system is in fact historically accurate and quite workable
> (assuming
> that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this suggestion in the
> spirit
> of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater:
>
> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to register any valid
> votes,
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. Otherwise, the
> rules as
> they currently exist remain in effect.
>
> This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is conditional; if
> only
> comes into effect if the voting turnout is particularly low and allows
> us to
> keep our more historical model when voting turnout is normal. Second,
> it
> keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting the procedure used
> for
> election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I chose 46
> centuries as
> the trigger because that is half of the number of centuries needed to
> carry
> a clear majority.
>
> Such a change would have to be made, of course, within the Comitia
> Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we can enact it
> before the
> general elections. I would also want to make such a change retroactive
> to
> the last vote; I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed
> amendments
> up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was evident in the
> last
> result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the procedure. It would
> also
> allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in the general
> election,
> rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into the new year.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1675
From:	"Diana Read" <neferhuri@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:02:16 -0400

Salvete, omnes--

Well, I for one am very excited about this
Julius Caesar movie, as I happen to be reading
McCullough's "Caesar's Women" now. When is this
movie going to be shown? Couldn't quite make it
out from the Web site.

Must join in the general dismay that L. deCaprio
is to depict Alexander--if the story is
accurate. He may be a good actor, but handsome
he definitely is not. Could not bring myself to
go see "Titanic" because of him, although
wouldn't have minded seeing Ioan Gruffud in that
film.

Lollia Velia Britannia


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:12:48 -0400

So better to go through yet another vote on two items that were
overwhelmingly supported by those who voted, and then go through yet another
election to select three more tribunes?

That seems needlessly wasteful.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:17 AM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
>
>
> Ave,
>
> I must say that in my opinion I am against any retroactive legislation,
> on principle. I would not support any legislation that would establish
> the precedent of enacting retroactive provisions. That is a very
> slippery slope that I am not willing to get on.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:10:53 -0700

I believe we should. You enacted the revision on the CC in August, we
must abide by it or legally revise it.

Regardless if its waste or not. Its the law.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> So better to go through yet another vote on two items that were
> overwhelmingly supported by those who voted, and then go through yet
> another
> election to select three more tribunes?
>
> That seems needlessly wasteful.
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix [mailto:alexious@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:17 AM
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Subject: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
> >
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > I must say that in my opinion I am against any retroactive
> legislation,
> > on principle. I would not support any legislation that would
> establish
> > the precedent of enacting retroactive provisions. That is a very
> > slippery slope that I am not willing to get on.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:13:31 -0500 (CDT)

Salve,

> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to register any valid votes,
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. Otherwise, the rules as
> they currently exist remain in effect.

Do we really wish to introduce an element of uncertainty and randomness?
Simply removing the "97" rule would eliminate the need to count these
centuries at all. The results would be more meaningful than those produced
by intermixing real and imaginary votes.

I think the simplest and fairest solution would be to replace all references
to "97" with "one half of the number of centuries voting, plus one".

> This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is conditional; if only
> comes into effect if the voting turnout is particularly low and allows us to
> keep our more historical model when voting turnout is normal.

But in our case, it is "normal" to have low turnout. Let us return to the
historical model in two or three years, when we really do have over a
thousand citizens.

> I would also want to make such a change retroactive to the last vote;

This may make it more difficult to fix the Comitia. 15 centuries voted
against one of the recent lexes; opponents of that law would not vote
to fix the Comitia if they knew that doing so would cause a law they
voted against to pass automatically. We need their support in order
to get the 97 YES votes, and this won't happen if the proposal has
two other laws attached to it.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:15:35 -0500 (CDT)

Salve,

> So better to go through yet another vote on two items that were
> overwhelmingly supported by those who voted, and then go through yet another
> election to select three more tribunes?

Yes. The opponents of the two laws will vote against fixing the Comitia
if the two failed proposals will be automatically fixed at the same time.
We need their support to get the 97 required votes.

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:05:49 US/Central

Salvete Consul Vedi Quiritesque

> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to register any valid votes,
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. Otherwise, the rules as
> they currently exist remain in effect.

It seems better to simply go with the side that received more centuriae. Since
a 50-50 chance will generally give half of the remaining centuriae to each
side, the side which received more voting centuriae will generally win more
than half of the total centuriae (i.e. the 97 required by law). Therefore,
going by lots will usually give the same result as just going with the side
with more centuriae. However, it will also have the unfortunate side effect of
occasional random aberration, possibly overthrowing a measure that was quite
popular. The fewer voting centuriae, the more likely that is.

Due to that, I prefer L Sicinius' suggestion of a constitutional amendment
(II.E.2 mandates 193 centuriae) which sets the number of centuriae based upon
the number of tax-paying cives, to a maximum of 193. Since the number of
centuriae was increased over time in antiquity, this seems reasonably
historical to me.

Of all the solutions, the one that is most readily available is M Octavius'
suggestion that the censores should "massage" the assignment of centuriae to
the 5 classes. Hopefully, that will sufficiently ameliorate the problem.

> Such a change would have to be made, of course, within the Comitia
> Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we can enact it before the
> general elections. I would also want to make such a change retroactive to
> the last vote; I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed amendments
> up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was evident in the last
> result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the procedure. It would also
> allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in the general election,
> rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into the new year.

While I, too, would have preferred to have had a different result in these last
elections, and while I agree that the democratic will of the voters (as opposed
to the legal will of the republic, perhaps?) was evident , I could not in clear
conscience support any attempt to pass either a retroactive law or a law which
specifically altered the outcome of a vote. (This is not the same thing as
enacting a law which amends or replaces a previous law.) This is a line we
should not cross, as it would set a very dangerous precedent. Indeed, now that
I am thinking about it, a law that forbade magistrati from promulgating both
leges saturae (which are now technically legal) and retroactive leges would be
a good thing.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:44:50 -0000

Arrgg! I wish I understood politics! I have no clue what is being
discussed here other than something about changing the requirements
to pass a vote.

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> Given the obvious failings of the new system for voting in the
Comitia
> Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout (resulting in a vast
number
> of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes by default), I
would
> like to propose the following solution. However, I should point out
that the
> current system is in fact historically accurate and quite workable
(assuming
> that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this suggestion in the
spirit
> of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater:
>
> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to register any valid
votes,
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. Otherwise, the
rules as
> they currently exist remain in effect.
>
> This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is conditional;
if only
> comes into effect if the voting turnout is particularly low and
allows us to
> keep our more historical model when voting turnout is normal.
Second, it
> keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting the procedure
used for
> election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I chose 46
centuries as
> the trigger because that is half of the number of centuries needed
to carry
> a clear majority.
>
> Such a change would have to be made, of course, within the Comitia
> Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we can enact it
before the
> general elections. I would also want to make such a change
retroactive to
> the last vote; I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed
amendments
> up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was evident in
the last
> result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the procedure. It
would also
> allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in the general
election,
> rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into the new year.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:53:50 -0400

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CJ Sitter [mailto:otto_von_sitter@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:45 PM
>
> Arrgg! I wish I understood politics! I have no clue what is being
> discussed here other than something about changing the requirements
> to pass a vote.

That is what's being discussed. See? You understand more than you think! ;-)

The short/simplified version is...

To pass a lex in the Comitia Centuriata currently requires 97 out of 193
centuries to vote in favor of it. Because the voter turnout was (and usually
is) so low, a bunch of centuries had no votes at all, which the current
system reads as a "no" vote. So, even though an overwhelming majority of
those centuries that _did_ vote, voted yes for two of the leges in the last
vote, they were still defeated because of all those non-voting centuries.

What we're trying to do now is figure out a way to keep that from happening
again.

Hope that helps...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	24 Oct 2001 13:33:04 -0200

On Wed, 2001-10-24 at 12:14, Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> Given the obvious failings of the new system for voting in the Comitia
> Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout (resulting in a vast number
> of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes by default), I would
> like to propose the following solution. However, I should point out that the
> current system is in fact historically accurate and quite workable (assuming
> that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this suggestion in the spirit
> of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater:
>
> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to register any valid votes,
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. Otherwise, the rules as
> they currently exist remain in effect.
>
> This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is conditional; if only
> comes into effect if the voting turnout is particularly low and allows us to
> keep our more historical model when voting turnout is normal. Second, it
> keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting the procedure used for
> election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I chose 46 centuries as
> the trigger because that is half of the number of centuries needed to carry
> a clear majority.
>
> Such a change would have to be made, of course, within the Comitia
> Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we can enact it before the
> general elections. I would also want to make such a change retroactive to
> the last vote; I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed amendments
> up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was evident in the last
> result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the procedure. It would also
> allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in the general election,
> rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into the new year.
>

Salve,

3 thoughts:
1) Retroactive laws should be a no,no in any state. This is not
acceptable.
2) having lot decide for the result of a vote seems also a bad idea

3) What s wrong with the 2/3 majority of expressed suffragesincluding
ties) IF there are more then X (46 why not) centuries that fail to
vote.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Idea to fix CC rules
From:	StarVVreck@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:48:04 EDT

Salve!

In a message dated 10/24/01 1:52:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
germanicus@-------- writes:

<< What we're trying to do now is figure out a way to keep that from happening
again. >>

Again, I see my proposal to ammend the Lex (Which I posted earlier) from
requiring a majority to requiring a simple plurality as the best solution.
The worst difficulty in ammending the lex would be getting the ammendment to
pass under the lex in question.

Vale,

Iulius Titinius Antonius


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:10:21 EDT

> . I would also want to make such a change retroactive to
> > the last vote; I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed amendments
> > up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was evident in the
> last
> > result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the procedure

Salvete

I am against any retroactive changes in any law or amendement. It sets a too
dangerous precedent that could be used later to undermine the will of the
Senate & the People.

Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[novaroma] Okay, no retroactive lex
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:01:15 -0400

Salvete

Okay, consider the retroactivity of the law dropped.

Move on, people.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Marcus Longinius <irminius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)

Ave
How about an online census to find out how many voters
there are.It could be done by century or by Family
or... Just a sugestion.
Vale
M.Irminius Longinus
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> Given the obvious failings of the new system for
> voting in the Comitia
> Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout
> (resulting in a vast number
> of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes
> by default), I would
> like to propose the following solution. However, I
> should point out that the
> current system is in fact historically accurate and
> quite workable (assuming
> that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this
> suggestion in the spirit
> of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater:
>
> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to
> register any valid votes,
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot.
> Otherwise, the rules as
> they currently exist remain in effect.
>
> This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is
> conditional; if only
> comes into effect if the voting turnout is
> particularly low and allows us to
> keep our more historical model when voting turnout
> is normal. Second, it
> keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting
> the procedure used for
> election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I
> chose 46 centuries as
> the trigger because that is half of the number of
> centuries needed to carry
> a clear majority.
>
> Such a change would have to be made, of course,
> within the Comitia
> Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we
> can enact it before the
> general elections. I would also want to make such a
> change retroactive to
> the last vote; I see no need to bring the two
> barely-not-passed amendments
> up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters
> was evident in the last
> result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the
> procedure. It would also
> allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in
> the general election,
> rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into
> the new year.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:42:31 -0700 (PDT)

Ave,
Okay before I even try and voice a suggestion I
would like to just make it clear that I do not have
full knowledge of how the Roman politics of NR work
but I will voice an opinion on what I do know of
politics so here it is:

From what I do understand of the present problem
with the voting procedures there is a serious problem
in getting legislation to pass do to voter turn-out.
>From what I depict, from my point of view (opinion),
the legislation that exists in reference to voting
procedures failed to take into consideration the
possibility of a low voter turn-out as well as the the
situation concerning inactive citizens or citizens who
just do not care for the politics.
Yes, it could be argued that the present
legislation does take into consideration the
possibility of a low voter turn-out. However, I feel
it does not take the extra step by assuming the
possibility of a very low voter turn-out. If it
assumes that X amount of citizens will turn-out and
lets say in every century the turn-out does not meet
that proscribed standard then the entire vote is a
waste and there was no point at all in having a vote.
Therefore if I had any authority or position to
do so I would recommend a change in the present
legislation. I would recommend to those in a higher
position than myself to either lower the expected
turn-out which would therefore be more open to the
possibility of either a low voter turn-out or also
take into consideration that there are citizens who
are no longer active or have left without notifying
the proper authorities. The second suggestion I would
make is legislation that will make a majority rules
voting system. However I would also suggest it be
made that the majority be a clear majority to avoid
the possibility of a situation where 1 vote tips the
scale. If a clear set majority is made then it can be
clearly seen exactly what a majority of the citizens
wish. That is why I say make a 2/3 rule in reference
to voting.
vale,
Quintus Cornelius Caesar

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"alexious@--------" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:58:01 -0400

Ave,

That still wont solve any issue. I proposed a Census Lex that would clean up the roles, and I am incorportating a final version on it now with the input I received from such notable citizens as Senator T. Labienus, Propraetor L Sicinius and Gn. Salix. It is nearing completion and hopefully the Consuls next year will see the need to promulgate this. We obviously have a problem in regards that our numbers of citizens in total do NOT equal the number of active citizens. This issue highlights that problem. It is simply just too simple for prospective citizens to gain citizenship in NR and then disappear once they have filled out the online form. Back when NR began, up to over the first year of NR's existence citizenship applications had to be done by snail mail. Thus there was more effort needed to be exerted by the prospective citizen, maybe we need to find a way that more effort needs to be exerted by prospective citizens and citizens who have been approved. The Lex Vedia de Assidui will certainly be a step in that direction but, it is only a partial step. A realistic hypothesis, based on the voter turnout in this last election and in the previous december election shows us that about 15%-30% of Nova Romans actually take the time to vote. Therefore, we should estaimate about that precentage of citizens will actually pay the taxes. That means the rest of the population will be capiti censi, and will likely not vote, not be involved on the ML, not be apart of the Nova Roman Culture. I believe the Census lex would be an excellent way of determining which citizens have essentially left Nova Roma without notifying the Censors. While it would maintain those citizens in Nova Roma who are active, yet not politically active. Essentially it would clean our roles on the Album and give us a better understanding of our true population, and of course the Census would be done along historical guidelines (in other words conducted every 5 years).

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Marcus Longinius irminius@--------
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules

<html><body>
<tt>
Ave 
How about an online census to find out how many voters 
there are.It could be done by century or by Family 
or... Just a sugestion. 
Vale 
M.Irminius Longinus 
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus 
<germanicus@--------> wrote: 
> Salvete; 
> 
> Given the obvious failings of the new system for 
> voting in the Comitia 
> Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout 
> (resulting in a vast number 
> of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes 
> by default), I would 
> like to propose the following solution. However, I 
> should point out that the 
> current system is in fact historically accurate and 
> quite workable (assuming 
> that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this 
> suggestion in the spirit 
> of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: 
> 
> Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to 
> register any valid votes, 
> non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. 
> Otherwise, the rules as 
> they currently exist remain in effect. 
> 
> This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is 
> conditional; if only 
> comes into effect if the voting turnout is 
> particularly low and allows us to 
> keep our more historical model when voting turnout 
> is normal. Second, it 
> keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting 
> the procedure used for 
> election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I 
> chose 46 centuries as 
> the trigger because that is half of the number of 
> centuries needed to carry 
> a clear majority. 
> 
> Such a change would have to be made, of course, 
> within the Comitia 
> Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we 
> can enact it before the 
> general elections. I would also want to make such a 
> change retroactive to 
> the last vote; I see no need to bring the two 
> barely-not-passed amendments 
> up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters 
> was evident in the last 
> result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the 
> procedure. It would also 
> allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in 
> the general election, 
> rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into 
> the new year. 
> 
> Valete, 
> 
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus, 
> Consul 
> 
> 
 
 
__________________________________________________ 
Do You Yahoo!? 
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. 
<a href="http://personals.yahoo.com">http://personals.yahoo.com</a> 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:03:06 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites.

--- StarVVreck@-------- wrote:

<<snipped>>

> <<B. A vote or election shall be decided by a majority of the
> centuries.>>
>
> Whichever best suited the rogatores own political ambitions.

The way I understand it, there is only *one* interpretation of this
paragraph: if an option receives over one half of the votes, it is
approved. The rogatores have no say in that.

What we could discuss is if that majoity needs to be simple (like in
our current parliaments) or absolute (like it was in Rome). If we want
to keep it absolute, the solution would be to reduce the number of
centuries and (this is my personal opinion) create a fixed system to
assign citizens to each century, instead of having the censores choose
the century for each citizen (now *this* could lead to abuse, which I
am not saying it has necessarily been the case until now).

> However with such a strict article impeding interpretation, nonvoting
> and abstaining are exactly the same as voting against.

Even worse: abstaining is more effective than voting against if you are
against a certain proposal.

> Lex (Senator's Name Here) de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
> Paragraph V.B. of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
> is hereby
> amended to read as the following:
>
> B. A vote or election shall be decided by a plurality of the
> centuries.
>
> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, candidates must receive
> votes
> from a plurality of the 193 centuries in order to win.
>
> a. In case of a tie, a new election shall be called within
> 30 days from the end of the current election.
>
> 2. In the case of a vote on a lex, a plurality of the 193 centuries
> must vote
> in
> favor for the lex to be adopted.
>
> C. Votes may be tallied by automated means should the rogatores
> determine
> such is preferable to, and at least as accurate as, a manual count.
>
> D. Only the aggregate votes of the centuries shall be delivered to
> the
> presiding magistrate; the votes of individual citizens shall be
> secret.
>
> END LEX
>
> Simply put the amendment above will make a Lex only receive most of
> the
> votes. Abstaining and nonvoting will no longer count as Against.
> For a
> measure to not pass it will require more Against votes than For
> votes,
> whereas currently for a measure to not pass it simply requires for
> most
> people to not vote at all. It will quite simply solve all our
> problems, well
> ... at least where the Comitia Centuratia vote is concerned.

This would lead to a simple majority system. It certainly is a valid
option, although I would like to see further discussion on this.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:08 -0400

Salve,

Just out of curiosity, why is a lex required? Could you not accomplish your
goal through a Censorial Edict? I may be muddled on the finer points of how
these things go, but it seems an Edict would be entirely Constitutional,
much faster, and still accomplish exactly what you'd like to see happen.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexious@-------- [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:58 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
>
>
> Ave,
>
> That still wont solve any issue. I proposed a Census Lex that
> would clean up the roles, and I am incorportating a final version
> on it now with the input I received from such notable citizens as
> Senator T. Labienus, Propraetor L Sicinius and Gn. Salix. It is
> nearing completion and hopefully the Consuls next year will see
> the need to promulgate this. We obviously have a problem in
> regards that our numbers of citizens in total do NOT equal the
> number of active citizens. This issue highlights that problem.
> It is simply just too simple for prospective citizens to gain
> citizenship in NR and then disappear once they have filled out
> the online form. Back when NR began, up to over the first year
> of NR's existence citizenship applications had to be done by
> snail mail. Thus there was more effort needed to be exerted by
> the prospective citizen, maybe we need to find a way that more
> effort needs to be exerted by prospective citizens and citizens
> who have been approved. The Lex Vedia de Assidui will certainly
> be a step in that direction but, it is only a partial step. A
> realistic hypothesis, based on the voter turnout in this last
> election and in the previous december election shows us that
> about 15%-30% of Nova Romans actually take the time to vote.
> Therefore, we should estaimate about that precentage of citizens
> will actually pay the taxes. That means the rest of the
> population will be capiti censi, and will likely not vote, not be
> involved on the ML, not be apart of the Nova Roman Culture. I
> believe the Census lex would be an excellent way of determining
> which citizens have essentially left Nova Roma without notifying
> the Censors. While it would maintain those citizens in Nova Roma
> who are active, yet not politically active. Essentially it would
> clean our roles on the Album and give us a better understanding
> of our true population, and of course the Census would be done
> along historical guidelines (in other words conducted every 5 years).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Marcus Longinius irminius@--------
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
>
>
> <html><body>
> <tt>
> Ave 
> How about an online census to find out how many voters 
> there are.It could be done by century or by Family 
> or... Just a sugestion. 
> Vale 
> M.Irminius Longinus 
> --- Flavius Vedius Germanicus 
> <germanicus@--------> wrote: 
> > Salvete; 
> > 
> > Given the obvious failings of the new system for 
> > voting in the Comitia 
> > Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout 
> > (resulting in a vast number 
> > of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes 
> > by default), I would 
> > like to propose the following solution. However, I 
> > should point out that the 
> > current system is in fact historically accurate and 
> > quite workable (assuming 
> > that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this 
> > suggestion in the spirit 
> > of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: 
> > 
> > Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to 
> > register any valid votes, 
> > non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. 
> > Otherwise, the rules as 
> > they currently exist remain in effect. 
> > 
> > This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is 
> > conditional; if only 
> > comes into effect if the voting turnout is 
> > particularly low and allows us to 
> > keep our more historical model when voting turnout 
> > is normal. Second, it 
> > keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting 
> > the procedure used for 
> > election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I 
> > chose 46 centuries as 
> > the trigger because that is half of the number of 
> > centuries needed to carry 
> > a clear majority. 
> > 
> > Such a change would have to be made, of course, 
> > within the Comitia 
> > Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we 
> > can enact it before the 
> > general elections. I would also want to make such a 
> > change retroactive to 
> > the last vote; I see no need to bring the two 
> > barely-not-passed amendments 
> > up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters 
> > was evident in the last 
> > result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the 
> > procedure. It would also 
> > allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in 
> > the general election, 
> > rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into 
> > the new year. 
> > 
> > Valete, 
> > 
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus, 
> > Consul 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________ 
> Do You Yahoo!? 
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. 
> <a href="http://personals.yahoo.com">http://personals.yahoo.com</a> 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
> <tr>
> <td align=center> size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT <a
> href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.16968313223233.1501206/D=egroup
> web/S=1705313712:HM/A=817985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N
> 2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1003959651?"><img
> src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;or
> d=1003959651?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
> </tr>
> </table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1696831.3223233.15012
> 06/D=egroupmail/S=1705313712:HM/A=817985/rand=576067012"></td></tr>
> </table>
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a></tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Subject:	RE: RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"alexious@--------" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:12:02 -0400

Ave,

Thanks for your question. But, unfortunately we could not promulgate an edict because those citizens who have essentially disappeared and are not in any way shape or form interested in Nova Roma would need their citizenship removed. This is the one sticking point that would prevent the issuance of a Censorial Edict. This part, IMHO, is an essential piece of the legislation, because it would give us a much more accurate outlook of our total number of citizens, regardless if they are politically motiviated or not. But it would rid the roles of essentially dead wood people who are just on the roles as a Roman name and in no other way responsive to Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Original Message:
-----------------
From: JusticeCMO justicecmo@--------
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:08 -0400
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules

<html><body>
<tt>
Salve, 
 
Just out of curiosity, why is a lex required? Could you not accomplish your 
goal through a Censorial Edict? I may be muddled on the finer points of how 
these things go, but it seems an Edict would be entirely Constitutional, 
much faster, and still accomplish exactly what you'd like to see happen. 
 
Vale, 
Priscilla Vedia Serena 
 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: alexious@-------- [mailto:alexious@--------] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:58 PM 
> To: novaroma@-------- 
> Subject: RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules 
> 
> 
> Ave, 
> 
> That still wont solve any issue. I proposed a Census Lex that 
> would clean up the roles, and I am incorportating a final version 
> on it now with the input I received from such notable citizens as 
> Senator T. Labienus, Propraetor L Sicinius and Gn. Salix. It is 
> nearing completion and hopefully the Consuls next year will see 
> the need to promulgate this. We obviously have a problem in 
> regards that our numbers of citizens in total do NOT equal the 
> number of active citizens. This issue highlights that problem. 
> It is simply just too simple for prospective citizens to gain 
> citizenship in NR and then disappear once they have filled out 
> the online form. Back when NR began, up to over the first year 
> of NR's existence citizenship applications had to be done by 
> snail mail. Thus there was more effort needed to be exerted by 
> the prospective citizen, maybe we need to find a way that more 
> effort needs to be exerted by prospective citizens and citizens 
> who have been approved. The Lex Vedia de Assidui will certainly 
> be a step in that direction but, it is only a partial step. A 
> realistic hypothesis, based on the voter turnout in this last 
> election and in the previous december election shows us that 
> about 15%-30% of Nova Romans actually take the time to vote. 
> Therefore, we should estaimate about that precentage of citizens 
> will actually pay the taxes. That means the rest of the 
> population will be capiti censi, and will likely not vote, not be 
> involved on the ML, not be apart of the Nova Roman Culture. I 
> believe the Census lex would be an excellent way of determining 
> which citizens have essentially left Nova Roma without notifying 
> the Censors. While it would maintain those citizens in Nova Roma 
> who are active, yet not politically active. Essentially it would 
> clean our roles on the Album and give us a better understanding 
> of our true population, and of course the Census would be done 
> along historical guidelines (in other words conducted every 5 years). 
> 
> Respectfully, 
> 
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix 
> Censor of Nova Roma 
> 
> Original Message: 
> ----------------- 
> From: Marcus Longinius irminius@-------- 
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:58:45 -0700 (PDT) 
> To: novaroma@-------- 
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules 
> 
> 
> <html><body> 
> <tt> 
> Ave 
> How about an online census to find out how many voters 
> there are.It could be done by century or by Family 
> or... Just a sugestion. 
> Vale 
> M.Irminius Longinus 
> --- Flavius Vedius Germanicus 
> <germanicus@--------> wrote: 
> > Salvete; 
> > 
> > Given the obvious failings of the new system for 
> > voting in the Comitia 
> > Centuriata when faced with a low voter turnout 
> > (resulting in a vast number 
> > of non-voting centuries being counted as "no" votes 
> > by default), I would 
> > like to propose the following solution. However, I 
> > should point out that the 
> > current system is in fact historically accurate and 
> > quite workable (assuming 
> > that most of the Centuries vote), and I make this 
> > suggestion in the spirit 
> > of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: 
> > 
> > Simply put, if more than 46 centuries fail to 
> > register any valid votes, 
> > non-voting centuries' votes are determined by lot. 
> > Otherwise, the rules as 
> > they currently exist remain in effect. 
> > 
> > This, I think, has two main advantages. First, it is 
> > conditional; if only 
> > comes into effect if the voting turnout is 
> > particularly low and allows us to 
> > keep our more historical model when voting turnout 
> > is normal. Second, it 
> > keeps the spirit of the voting procedure, adopting 
> > the procedure used for 
> > election of candidates for use in voting on leges. I 
> > chose 46 centuries as 
> > the trigger because that is half of the number of 
> > centuries needed to carry 
> > a clear majority. 
> > 
> > Such a change would have to be made, of course, 
> > within the Comitia 
> > Centuriata itself, but I think if we act quickly we 
> > can enact it before the 
> > general elections. I would also want to make such a 
> > change retroactive to 
> > the last vote; I see no need to bring the two 
> > barely-not-passed amendments 
> > up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters 
> > was evident in the last 
> > result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in the 
> > procedure. It would also 
> > allow us to have the election of all five Tribuni in 
> > the general election, 
> > rather than forcing a new election a few weeks into 
> > the new year. 
> > 
> > Valete, 
> > 
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus, 
> > Consul 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________ 
> Do You Yahoo!? 
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. 
> <a href="<a href="http://personals.yahoo.com">http://personals.yahoo.com</a>"><a href="http://personals.yahoo.com">http://personals.yahoo.com</a></a> 
> </tt> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> 
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> 
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups 
> Sponsor</td> 
> </tr> 
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF> 
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> 
> <tr> 
> <td align=center>
> size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT <a 
> href="<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.16968313223233.1501206/D=egroup">http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.16968313223233.1501206/D=egroup</a> 
> web/S=1705313712:HM/A=817985/R=0/*<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N">http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N</a> 
> 2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1003959651?"><img 
> src="<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;or">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;or</a> 
> d=1003959651?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td> 
> </tr> 
> </table></td> 
> </tr> 
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 
> src="<a href="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1696831.3223233.15012">http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1696831.3223233.15012</a> 
> 06/D=egroupmail/S=1705313712:HM/A=817985/rand=576067012"></td></tr> 
> </table> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a 
> href="<a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a></tt> 
> 
> 
> </body></html> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at 
> <a href="http://mail2web.com/">http://mail2web.com/</a> . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> 
> 
> 
> 
 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:29:42 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I must say that in my opinion I am against any retroactive
> legislation,
> on principle. I would not support any legislation that would
> establish
> the precedent of enacting retroactive provisions. That is a very
> slippery slope that I am not willing to get on.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On this occasion I have to fully agree with the censor Sulla.
Retroactivity is a dangerous concept, and one clearly forbidden in
every sensible legislative system since the time of Rome.

However, I do think that Germanicus' proposal has some value. However,
I would not like a "lottery". If those 46 centuries are not voting, let
us make 23 "for" and 23 "against" the proposal. In that way, just the
voting centuries would have the possibility of effectively approving or
disapproving a proposal.

Another options would be changing to a simple majority system, or
reducing the number of centuries.

Germanicus wrote:
> > I see no need to bring the two barely-not-passed
> > amendments up for a vote yet again when the will of the voters was
> > evident in the last result, even if it was thwarted by a glitch in
> > the procedure. It would also allow us to have the election of all
> > five Tribuni in the general election, rather than forcing a new
> > election a few weeks into the new year.

I guess that, to avoid retroactivity, we will have to bring those two
amendments up for a new vote. This is the only way to do it according
to Roman right. We could pass them in the same voting in which we pass
your proposed amendment, Germanice :-).

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:31:59 -0400

Salve;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexious@-------- [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:58 PM
>
> That still wont solve any issue. I proposed a Census Lex that
> would clean up the roles, and I am incorportating a final version
> on it now with the input I received from such notable citizens as
> Senator T. Labienus, Propraetor L Sicinius and Gn. Salix. It is
> nearing completion and hopefully the Consuls next year will see
> the need to promulgate this.

Actually, the Consuls this year have seen the need for such a lex for ten
months now. Despite repeated requests for the Censors to provide us with a
draft of suitable legislation, none has been forthcoming. I am pleased
(indeed, pleasantly surprised) to hear that you are finally nearing
completion on such a draft. I hope it will be completed in time to be
presented for a vote this year.

In a similar vein, the problem of inactive patresfamilia has been one that
has dogged us for some time, and also one which the Censores have been
repeatedly asked to promulgate an edictum to correct (no lex being required
to remove a sitting paterfamilias since the Constitution allows for
registration of such with the Censores, and the necessary mechanism could be
managed through that avenue). May I ask if such a solution is similarly in
the works, unbeknownst to the rest of us?

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:40:17 -0400

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:30 PM
>
> However, I do think that Germanicus' proposal has some value. However,
> I would not like a "lottery". If those 46 centuries are not voting, let
> us make 23 "for" and 23 "against" the proposal. In that way, just the
> voting centuries would have the possibility of effectively approving or
> disapproving a proposal.

The laws of probability state that the final result would most likely be
exactly that, or close to it. However, I tend to favor the choice-by-lot
system simply because it has historical roots. It is also, I might point
out, the method by which tied centuries are decided when voting on
candidates in an election.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	RE: RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	"alexious@--------" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:49:57 -0400

Salve;

<SNIP>

>
> That still wont solve any issue. I proposed a Census Lex that
> would clean up the roles, and I am incorportating a final version
> on it now with the input I received from such notable citizens as
> Senator T. Labienus, Propraetor L Sicinius and Gn. Salix. It is
> nearing completion and hopefully the Consuls next year will see
> the need to promulgate this.

Actually, the Consuls this year have seen the need for such a lex for ten
months now. Despite repeated requests for the Censors to provide us with a
draft of suitable legislation, none has been forthcoming. I am pleased
(indeed, pleasantly surprised) to hear that you are finally nearing
completion on such a draft. I hope it will be completed in time to be
presented for a vote this year.

Ave,

Sulla: Consul I did tell you I was working on a Census lex, and that I would send you the draft when it was completed. However, when I went back to the archieves to the discussion, I reread the input from Senator Labienus, Propraetor L. Sicinius and many others and am trying to incorporate some of their thoughts and ideas to the legislation that will be fair, reasonable, and wont provide such an undue burden on the Censors, who will be the magistrates who will need to supervise such a Census effort.

In a similar vein, the problem of inactive patresfamilia has been one that
has dogged us for some time, and also one which the Censores have been
repeatedly asked to promulgate an edictum to correct (no lex being required
to remove a sitting paterfamilias since the Constitution allows for
registration of such with the Censores, and the necessary mechanism could be
managed through that avenue). May I ask if such a solution is similarly in
the works, unbeknownst to the rest of us?

Sulla: Actually yes, there are two edicts that I have prepared. At least one of them will be promulgated in regards to pater registration. I am incorporting the comments and thoughts of my colleague and my scriba Decius Iunius. Hopefully that will be presented before the People by the end of next week. The second edict, if promulgated will deal with two issues first, the Creation of New gentes and the procedures for creating separate families within existing Gens.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul.

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:30 PM
> >
> > However, I do think that Germanicus' proposal has some value.
> However,
> > I would not like a "lottery". If those 46 centuries are not voting,
> let
> > us make 23 "for" and 23 "against" the proposal. In that way, just
> the
> > voting centuries would have the possibility of effectively
> approving or
> > disapproving a proposal.
>
> The laws of probability state that the final result would most likely
> be
> exactly that, or close to it. However, I tend to favor the
> choice-by-lot
> system simply because it has historical roots. It is also, I might
> point
> out, the method by which tied centuries are decided when voting on
> candidates in an election.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul

It might be historically correct; but it could lead to terrible
scenarios, where a proposal was rejected (or passed) due to simple bad
luck against the will of the voters. Tied centuries are a different
issue (after all, they *are* tied).

I guess your proposal would be more acceptable if you dropped the
aleatority of the metod.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:44:31 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

--- labienus@-------- escreveu:
> Salve Tite Octavi
>
> > Would it be possible to amend the constitution
> without involving the
> > comitia centuriata?
>
> There's only one way to bypass the Comitia
> Centuriata in order to amend the
> constitution. The Senate would have to appoint a
> dictator for the purpose,
> which seems a little extreme at this point. Down
> the road, if we can't manage
> to elect praetores, consules, or censores, it may be
> necessary. In that case,
> though, the dictator could simply alter the lex,
> rather than the constitution.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus

Perhaps there is another possibility, if the Senate
issues a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, giving power
enought to the Consuls, to supercede the Constitution,
for a limited time. Less extreme than appointing a
Dictator, but i prefer the situation solved by the
Comitia Centuriata itself. If we have enough time.

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebeius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:50:12 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Armini,

> Perhaps there is another possibility, if the Senate
> issues a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, giving power
> enought to the Consuls, to supercede the Constitution,
> for a limited time.

That's a possibility, but the Senatus Consultum Ultimum is by nature
a last resort, to be used for the defense of the state... I'd vote for
it only if the Comitia Centuriata had first failed to fix the situation
itself.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:59:10 -0300 (ART)

Salve

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
escreveu: > Salve Marce Armini,
>
> > Perhaps there is another possibility, if the
> Senate
> > issues a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, giving power
> > enought to the Consuls, to supercede the
> Constitution,
> > for a limited time.
>
> That's a possibility, but the Senatus Consultum
> Ultimum is by nature
> a last resort, to be used for the defense of the
> state... I'd vote for
> it only if the Comitia Centuriata had first failed
> to fix the situation
> itself.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Then, we agree with this! :)

M Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/