Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata Will Be Called To Order - 11/13/2001
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:19:46 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, SPQR_HQ@h... wrote:
> I must state for the record that the requirement to swear by a
> certain set of deities is an assault on religious freedom and
> designed to limit membership in Nova Roma to those who are not
> followers of "One God", be they devout Jews, Christians or Muslims.
>
> As an American I find this repugnant and against the Constitution of
> the Country, that I as a veteran of the military, and a Citicen of
> the United SDtates of America, have sworn to uphold.
>
> Please remove me from the roll of Nova Roma Citizens.
>
> Caius Fabius Varus
>

So are the Christian Churches violating the Constitution by requiring
that their ministers be Christians?

Subject:	[novaroma] Getting back caught up
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:18:36 -0800

Ave,

I have spent a bit of time getting caught up on the archives on the ML.
out of the many emails I have seen the challenge by our list moderator
about complimenting magistrates that have made a difference in Nova
Roma. I think this is an excellent challenge. I would like to voice my
opinion on this as well, if no one minds:

First, I would like to thank my colleague, Censor Lucius Equitius
Cincinnatus. He has been a wonderful colleague and it has been a
pleasure to work with him in my final year as censor. I hope sometime
in the future I will have the opportunity to work with him again.

Secondly, I would like to honor My scribe Oppius Flaccus Severus.
During this year we have had one major task and that was the preparation
of the censor handbook. During the course of the year we have touched
base on the phone for hours in drafting and redrafting subjects for the
Censor handbook. Every deadline that we have put for ourselves has
been met. And, by the end of the year a finished project will be
available so that all citizens and especially future Censors will be
able to utilize.

Finally, I would like to thank Senator M. Octavius. When I became
Censor I had many ideas in my head but I did not have the programming
skills to implement them. Senator M. Octavius was able to listen to
some of my ideas and was able to make them take shape. For that I must
thank you very much. Another aspect I would like to thank you is that
when there were areas you saw improvement was needed and was able to
those improvements quickly and flawlessly.

This is my list. There are many other Magistrates I would like to
thank for their tireless work to advance Nova Roma. And with that in
mind my hat is off to each one of you.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Subject:	[novaroma] Welcome to all new members...
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:22:40 -0800

Avete,

As Censor, I usually welcome all new members to NR privately via
correspondence. However, I have not been able to while I was away from
my home. So I would just like to take this brief time to welcome all
new members to Nova Roma. I hope all of your goals and your desires
will be satisfied in your involvement in NR. If you have any questions
please feel free to contact me and I would be happy to assist you in any
way I can.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] THE COMITIA CENTURIATA IS CONVENED
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	14 Nov 2001 22:17:16 -0200

Salve,

if your idea has some reasons in the case of voting on a law (I don t
like it even there), it is totally flawed in the case of elections.
If in an election there are a certain number of candidates, all equally
bad in your opinion (say Hitler,Stalin and Bin Laden, no relation with
NR personalities) the only way you have to object their election is to
abstain. Therefore abstention must be counted in the simple majority
vote if you don t want very bad things to happen.

Michel.


On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 23:20, Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
> Salve Decime Iuni,
>
> > Given that the opportunity to abstain is an option when voting, consider
>
> An abstention is a choice to not vote - the word means "deliberately
> refrain" according to Merriam-Webster. It's not a vote, it's the absence
> of a vote.
>
> When voting on several issues at once, as we usually do, one may vote
> on the items of interest but choose "abstain" (the button that is selected
> by default) for those items the voter has no strong opinion on.
>
> > the following 'worst case' scenario. 100 centuries vote in an election.
> > However, only two centuries vote in favour of a proposal whilst one
> > votes against. 97 centuries voted to abstain (remember that this is a
> > worst case scenario and, however unlikely it is to happen, it is still
> > possible). If abstaining centuries are not counted in the simple majority
> > definition then in this case proposal in question is adopted with only
> > 2% of voting centuries actually voting in favour.
>
> Yes, and I consider that a desirable outcome. Twice as many voted in
> favor of the proposal as voted against it. The other 97% didn't care at
> all; by abstaining they indicate that they find either outcome to be
> acceptable. Why should the 1% who vote "no" be victorious over the
> 2% who vote "yes"?
>
> > My argument is that abstaining centuries should be counted in the
> > 'simple majority' equation, not only to prevent the possibility of the
> > above scenario from occuring, but also in keeping with historical accuracy.
>
> And I believe that abstaining centuries should not be counted as "no"
> to prevent the opposite of your scenario from occuring, where the indifferent
> majority are counted as siding with the "no" voters automatically.
>
> > The original law states that 97 out of 193 centuries must vote in favour,
> > no matter how many centuries abstain. This principle should be maintained
> > in the ammendment. Only centuries that fail to vote at all should be
> > discounted.
>
> I believe the original law to be imperfect, hence the need for this
> adjustment.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] THE COMITIA CENTURIATA IS CONVENED
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:47:21 -0600 (CST)

Salve Mani Villi,

> if your idea has some reasons in the case of voting on a law (I don t
> like it even there), it is totally flawed in the case of elections.
> If in an election there are a certain number of candidates, all equally
> bad in your opinion (say Hitler,Stalin and Bin Laden, no relation with
> NR personalities) the only way you have to object their election is to
> abstain. Therefore abstention must be counted in the simple majority
> vote if you don t want very bad things to happen.

If there are enough people who would abstain from voting alltogether
rather than selecting from Hitler et al., then it is likely that a
worthy candidate will step up and run against them. If those votes are
numerous enough that (if they were abstentions) they would prevent
any candidate from winning, then, if given to an acceptable candidate,
he would likely win.

If the candidates are as you described, and none can be found to stand
against them, then we have problems serious enough that no vote-counting
procedural tweaks will fix it!

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Service Guarantees Citizenship
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:02:53 -0500

Salve Decia,

Very interesting and creative idea Decia Cornelia! It is a fun look at Rome,
and the drawings are great. I most likely couldn't draw a decent soldier
even if I attempted for a week. *grin* I look forward to seeing more on the
adventures of Rattius in the future.


"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro sum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Canada Orientalis Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
--

> I have a new comic panel that Pompeia Cornelia Strabo and I have been working
> on called 'Service Guarantees Citizenship' on my page. I'd like some opinions
> on it, if I could.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/sstorm1us/service.html
>
>
> thanks.
> Decia Cornelia Sepulchatia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Service Guarantees Citizenship
From:	"Uriel" <uriel@-------->
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:44:32 -0600

Ave, Amulius Claudius and everyone else,

Thank you, I appreciate it, and I will be putting up a new comic every
wednesday (but not today, I'm taking a small break) in addition to my
regular comic, Nana Takes on the World. I still have an open
story-submission policy, so, if anyone has any stories, please, feel free to
send them to me. :-)

Decia
http://www.geocities.com/sstorm1us/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amulius Claudius Petrus" <pkkt@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Service Guarantees Citizenship


> Salve Decia,
>
> Very interesting and creative idea Decia Cornelia! It is a fun look at
Rome,
> and the drawings are great. I most likely couldn't draw a decent soldier
> even if I attempted for a week. *grin* I look forward to seeing more on
the
> adventures of Rattius in the future.
>
>
> "Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro sum mater ab vitualis"
> "Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of
virtues"
>
> --
> Amulius Claudius Petrus
> Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
> Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
> Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
> Canada Orientalis Provincia
>
> Canada Orientalis Website:
> www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
>
> Gens Claudia Website:
> www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
> --
>
> > I have a new comic panel that Pompeia Cornelia Strabo and I have been
working
> > on called 'Service Guarantees Citizenship' on my page. I'd like some
opinions
> > on it, if I could.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/sstorm1us/service.html
> >
> >
> > thanks.
> > Decia Cornelia Sepulchatia
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata Will Be Called To Order - 11/13/2001
From:	"Matthias Stappert" <3s@-------->
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:11:03 -0000

Salve, Caie Fabi Vare,
salvete Novoromani.

I feel strong respect for your decision and realize, that there is of
course a conflict between your american military oath and the oath
required for Nova Roma officials and magistrates.

At the first view there might be a certain degree of intolerance, but
when you take a further look, this is untrue. Of course you are
allowed to believe in God, Allah, Jahwe or other deities. You can
practice your religion in your public and private life.

But if you decide to serve as an official or magistrate, you are
required to swear an oath on the roman deities. I cannot find any
intolerance in this. Furthermore, this is of course not required to
limit citizenship. There are many active christians, jews and muslims
in the Nova Roma community, also serving as magistrates or officials.
They had and have no problems with the required oath.

I hope you understand that a roman micronation must rest on the
religio romana as their commom religious basis. For that reason the
religio romana is the state religion of Nova Roma. This is expressed
by the oath. As a magistrate you can be obliged to take part in roman
religious rites, and for this you swear respect to the roman deities.
You are not required to be a pagan.

The ancient roman republic and the empire showed deep tolerance to
other religions, one of them was the christian religion. The pogroms
and prosecutions reported had their reasons not in religious matters
but in political ones. And you should not forget that the christian
religion was the last official religion of the roman empire from
Constantine up to the end 476 CE.

However, I respect your decision and understand your reasons, but I
hope that you understand our reasons, too.

Vale
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator


--- In novaroma@--------, SPQR_HQ@h... wrote:
> I must state for the record that the requirement to swear by a
> certain set of deities is an assault on religious freedom and
> designed to limit membership in Nova Roma to those who are not
> followers of "One God", be they devout Jews, Christians or Muslims.
>
> As an American I find this repugnant and against the Constitution of
> the Country, that I as a veteran of the military, and a Citicen of
> the United SDtates of America, have sworn to uphold.
>
> Please remove me from the roll of Nova Roma Citizens.
>
> Caius Fabius Varus

Subject:	[novaroma] new/old member question
From:	"Sybil Leek" <PrimaRituliaNocta@-------->
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:32:59 -0800

Salve Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Welcome back, I hope life is good for you. I just wanted to ask a question
about the list. I recently changed my email address and re-reged to the NR
mailing list. On my old account I would receive all of the posts in one
message, now I receive them individually. Did I miss a setting somewhere? I
rather prefer getting the posts all in one message. Would you perhaps know
how I can do that again? Or has the style in which massages are sent been
changed?

Vale Prima Ritulia Nocta

>Avete,
>
>As Censor, I usually welcome all new members to NR privately via
>correspondence. However, I have not been able to while I was away from
>my home. So I would just like to take this brief time to welcome all
>new members to Nova Roma. I hope all of your goals and your desires
>will be satisfied in your involvement in NR. If you have any questions
>please feel free to contact me and I would be happy to assist you in any
>way I can.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata Will Be Called To Order - 11/13/2001
From:	"Bjarne Sinkjaer" <bjsink@-------->
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:10:01 -0000

Ave Honourable Caius Fabius Varus

> I must state for the record that the requirement to swear by a
certain set of deities is an assault on religious freedom and
designed to limit membership in Nova Roma to those who are not
followers of "One God", be they devout Jews, Christians or Muslims.

> As an American I find this repugnant and against the Constitution
of the Country, that I as a veteran of the military, and a Citicen of
the United SDtates of America, have sworn to uphold.

> Please remove me from the roll of Nova Roma Citizens.

Before you take any rash actions, please consider what you do then
you take the oath. I am a catholic, and when I had to take the oath,
I had to consider seriously if I could take it. See what is claims:

I, XXX (XXX) do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova
Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the people and the
Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, XXX swear to honor the Gods and
Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman
Virtues in my public and private life.

I, XXX swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State
Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would
threaten its status as the State Religion.

Etc. Etc.

NR is about to rebuild what was Rome, or rather, what we se as the
virtues of Rome. As such, the Roman religion is one of its founding
stones. When you take the oath, you swear to honor the pagan gods,
not to convert to them. Likewise, you swear to not act against the
pagan faith as a state religion. Denmark is a very secular country,
with Protestantism as its State religion. We have religious freedom,
but the state manage a state church, which 85 % of the population is
born into, but don't truly believe in. It is more a social
arrangement. As a catholic, I have to live in a society, where most
other people don't belief in the same things as I do. Nova Roma is
exactly the same, in my opinion. I respect the pagan faith as I do to
most of the other beliefs of mankind, and honour them. In my opinion
it do not make my belief less faithful. Too much blood has been shed
over religious controversies. The dignity of most faiths has been
stained as a result. Time for that to end. Therefore, I don't have
any problems to honour the Religio Romana as a part of my duties.

Respectfully
Aulus Cornelius Sallust

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata Will Be Called To Order - 11/13/2001
From:	mark zona <pitdog2002@-------->
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:54:59 -0800 (PST)

Salve,

I do not see any degree of intolerance at all.

I am sorry, but I do not see any hindu's holding high
ranking financial positions in the Catholic Church,
nor do I see Buddhists getting Mullah positions in
Mecca.
So why would a non-pagan ever be insulted that they
are allowed to join a pagan organization, and expect
to take on a position which runs this pagan
organization without ever at least publically showing
respect to that religion and the gods and godesses of
that religion? I could not even become a member of the
Catholic Church without reciting the Nicaean Creed,
let alone hold an office. Yet if my pagan organization
expects its officers to at least pay lip service to my
gods and goddesses, they are assaulting religious
freedom?

I understand that Nova Roma is more than just a pagan
organization, but it is the vehicle by which the
Religio Romana will be restored. If the vehicle of
that restoration were to be run by those that are
repulsed by that restoration, then failure would be
inevitable.

Vale,

Marcus Antonius Zeno

--- Matthias Stappert <3s@--------> wrote:
> Salve, Caie Fabi Vare,
> salvete Novoromani.
>
> I feel strong respect for your decision and realize,
> that there is of
> course a conflict between your american military
> oath and the oath
> required for Nova Roma officials and magistrates.
>
> At the first view there might be a certain degree of
> intolerance, but
> when you take a further look, this is untrue. Of
> course you are
> allowed to believe in God, Allah, Jahwe or other
> deities. You can
> practice your religion in your public and private
> life.
>
> But if you decide to serve as an official or
> magistrate, you are
> required to swear an oath on the roman deities. I
> cannot find any
> intolerance in this. Furthermore, this is of course
> not required to
> limit citizenship. There are many active christians,
> jews and muslims
> in the Nova Roma community, also serving as
> magistrates or officials.
> They had and have no problems with the required
> oath.
>
> I hope you understand that a roman micronation must
> rest on the
> religio romana as their commom religious basis. For
> that reason the
> religio romana is the state religion of Nova Roma.
> This is expressed
> by the oath. As a magistrate you can be obliged to
> take part in roman
> religious rites, and for this you swear respect to
> the roman deities.
> You are not required to be a pagan.
>
> The ancient roman republic and the empire showed
> deep tolerance to
> other religions, one of them was the christian
> religion. The pogroms
> and prosecutions reported had their reasons not in
> religious matters
> but in political ones. And you should not forget
> that the christian
> religion was the last official religion of the roman
> empire from
> Constantine up to the end 476 CE.
>
> However, I respect your decision and understand your
> reasons, but I
> hope that you understand our reasons, too.
>
> Vale
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> Praetor, Senator
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, SPQR_HQ@h... wrote:
> > I must state for the record that the requirement
> to swear by a
> > certain set of deities is an assault on religious
> freedom and
> > designed to limit membership in Nova Roma to those
> who are not
> > followers of "One God", be they devout Jews,
> Christians or Muslims.
> >
> > As an American I find this repugnant and against
> the Constitution of
> > the Country, that I as a veteran of the military,
> and a Citicen of
> > the United SDtates of America, have sworn to
> uphold.
> >
> > Please remove me from the roll of Nova Roma
> Citizens.
> >
> > Caius Fabius Varus
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Mlitary / Nova Roma Magistrate's Oath
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:41:44 -0500 (EST)

Master Varus;

You certainly have the right to withdraw your name from the rolls of
Nova Roma if you wish to do so. However, I too have served my country
as an enlisted man and as an Officer for 20+ years in the U.S. Naval
Submarine Force.

In retrospect, I have also completed the Nva Roma Cursus Honorium, one
of two Magistrates to do so. I am a Christain By faith, and am striving
to attain the status of a true Roman through both the Christain Ideals
and the Roman Virtues.

I am drawn to Rome and it's histoy by it's great accomplishments in
ancient times, and it's establishment of laws, and architechture which
last to the present day.

I can respect the Gods of Rome for what they have inspired those who
worshiped them have accomplished even though I do not worship them
myself. I find no difficulty in respecting those beliefs, giving credit
where credit is due, in my estimation, and in my turn having the
privalage of knowing and working with outstanding men and women who are
inspired by a different faith than the one in which I believe.

No-one in Nova Roma has asked or required anyone to show anything but
respect for the Gods of Rome and tolerance for those who believe in
them. Just as no-one has required anybody to reject the Christain,
Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religious faiths or beliefs.

As I have indicated, to leave Nova Roma is your choice, but in my view
you owe an apology to the Citizens of Nova Roma, for not determining the
true state of affairs here in Nova Roma regarding the religious ideals
and tolerance reflected by the citizens of this micronation, for not
reading the Constitution before your tirade, and for not reading the
Oath itself, and allowing yourself to undersand the real meaning of
these laws which govern Nova Roma. As a military officer of the United
States, I have some small understanding of my country's laws, as well as
my country's wish for religious tolerance. It is one of the things that
I have spent my life dedicated to bothin the military and the civilian
sectors, and what I now devote myself to as an ld man doing those few
things that I can and wish to do to forward those beliefs. Nova Roma as
an entity does not deserve your erroneous remarks, nor does the
micronation deserve your accusations of intolerance

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Military / Nva Roma Magistrate's Oath
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:47:21 -0500 (EST)

My apologies for the abrupt ending of my last message. As often happens
I hit the right key at the wrong time. I wished only to add my name to
the message, as below;

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Senator, Proconsul, and Magistrate

(aka: James L. Mathews, CWO (SS), USN (ret.)

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:	Re: [novaroma] THE COMITIA CENTURIATA IS CONVENED
From:	"Decimus Iunius Silanus" <danedwardsuk@-------->
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:04:21 -0000

Salve Marce Octavi

> When voting on several issues at once, as we usually do, one may vote
> on the items of interest but choose "abstain" (the button that is selected
> by default) for those items the voter has no strong opinion on.

But this is still a vote and therefore should still be counted. I strongly believe that the option to vote for 'none of the above' is a fundamental democratic principle which is sadly lacking in many democracies.

> Why should the 1% who vote "no" be victorious over the
> 2% who vote "yes"?

But you are advocating minority legislation which surely can't be a good thing. If the proposal is good enough then enough people will vote for it and the law will pass. If it is not the people will either vote against or abstain.

> I believe the original law to be imperfect, hence the need for this
> adjustment.

The original law was imperfect due to our true population and low voter turnout. The fundamental principle behind the original law was historically correct and I argue that it's this principle that should be maintained. Only centuries that fail to vote at all should be discounted.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] THE COMITIA CENTURIATA IS CONVENED
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:27:57 -0600 (CST)

Salve Decime Iuni,

> But this is still a vote and therefore should still be counted.

I consider it to be the absence of a vote. It's not a vote for nothingness,
it's an indication that the voter was present but chose to not vote on
that issue.

> I strongly believe that the option to vote for 'none of the above' is a
> fundamental democratic principle which is sadly lacking in many democracies.

Did it exist in the Roman Republic? If a voter at the Comitia held on
to his token for a particular race, not putting it in the jar, I don't
think it would have been counted as a vote against all candidates; it
would have been ignored, and the other votes would settle it.

> > Why should the 1% who vote "no" be victorious over the
> > 2% who vote "yes"?
>
> But you are advocating minority legislation which surely can't be a good
> thing.

You are advocating counting every "abstain" as a "no", and I don't think
that's a good thing either. By including centuries in which every
voter abstained in the totals which the "yes" voters must overcome, there's
no effective difference between an abstain and a "no" at all.

Someone who abstains from voting probably doesn't want their vote to be
counted as a "no"; they're indicating that they don't want to make a
decision on that issue at all, probably preferring to leave it to those
voters who are better informed.

> If the proposal is good enough then enough people will vote for it and
> the law will pass. If it is not the people will either vote against
> or abstain.

What of those who truly don't care, or admit that they don't know enough
about the issue? By counting abstain as "no" you'd be leaving no reasonable
course of action to those people.

> The original law was imperfect due to our true population and low voter
> turnout.

Yes. Eventually we'll have enough of a population such that every century
will cast a vote, the handful of "abstineo"s will be ineffective because
someone else in the century has made a true vote, and all of this will
be irrelevant. Until then, however, we need a system that will not
paralyze us.

Two good laws failed last month, in spite of overwhelming support,
because of the difficulty of achieving 97 centuries voting "yes" when
there are only about 110 centuries voting in total. If the current
proposal does not pass, we will be unable to elect any senior magistrates
next month. We must have a standard, for now, that is reasonable and
attainable.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Getting back caught up
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:20:54 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I have spent a bit of time getting caught up on the archives on the
ML.
> Very Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma

Ave, Amice!

Welcome back, Sulla, you have been missed! Like many others here will
no doubt do, I reiterate my heartfelt condolences and sympathy for
your recent loss - I imagine I can safely speak for the listers in
general in saying that our best wishes and/or our prayers have been
(and are) with you, and that it's good to see you back.

Vale,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: new/old member question
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:27:46 -0000

Ave, Ritulia,

I'm jumping in to answer this, although you did direct the question
to our good censor Sulla. This can be found by clicking on the option
Edit My Membership (near the top of the screen when you're in a
list) - go to Message Delivery, then select Daily Journal. It's a
Yahoo Groups setting that defaults to Individual Messages when you
first sign up.

Hope that helps,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus

--- In novaroma@--------, "S-------- Leek" <PrimaRituliaNocta@h...> wrote:
> Salve Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Welcome back, I hope life is good for you. I just wanted to ask a
question
> about the list. I recently changed my email address and re-reged to
the NR
> mailing list. On my old account I would receive all of the posts in
one
> message, now I receive them individually. Did I miss a setting
somewhere? I
> rather prefer getting the posts all in one message. Would you
perhaps know
> how I can do that again? Or has the style in which massages are
sent been
> changed?
>
> Vale Prima Ritulia Nocta
>
> >Avete,
> >
> >As Censor, I usually welcome all new members to NR privately via
> >correspondence. However, I have not been able to while I was away
from
> >my home. So I would just like to take this brief time to welcome
all
> >new members to Nova Roma. I hope all of your goals and your
desires
> >will be satisfied in your involvement in NR. If you have any
questions
> >please feel free to contact me and I would be happy to assist you
in any
> >way I can.
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] THE COMITIA CENTURIATA IS CONVENED
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:09:52 EST

In a message dated 11/15/01 9:29:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
haase@-------- writes:


> Did it exist in the Roman Republic? If a voter at the Comitia held on
> to his token for a particular race, not putting it in the jar, I don't
> think it would have been counted as a vote against all candidates; it
> would have been ignored, and the other votes would settle it.
>

According to Dionysios "Antiquities" if a citizen did not vote, the result
was meaningless,
since the Rogatorii only tallied "Yes" and "No" votes. The Non vote was more
powerful in meaning when used by Senators while voting in the Senate.

Q. Fabius Maximus



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] THE COMITIA CENTURIATA IS CONVENED
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	15 Nov 2001 17:35:04 -0200

On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 15:27, Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
> Salve Decime Iuni,
>
> > But this is still a vote and therefore should still be counted.
>
> I consider it to be the absence of a vote. It's not a vote for nothingness,
> it's an indication that the voter was present but chose to not vote on
> that issue.
>

The absence of a vote is not voting. Voting I abstain (or blank/null in
modern democracies) has a meaning:
Yes : support of the law (and incidently of the magistrate that proposed
it)
No: against the law and the magistrate (If the NOs win the magistrate
usually thinks strongly about resigning)
Abstain : against the law but not against the magistrate which firmly
stays in place.

This system is used in most democracies that use referendums, and also
in the parliaments of parlamentary systems.

It is very common for some majority parties to ask for their
sympatisants to abstain for that exact reason.

Removing this elementary democratic process would be very bad for our
democracy.


> > I strongly believe that the option to vote for 'none of the above' is a
> > fundamental democratic principle which is sadly lacking in many democracies.
>
> Did it exist in the Roman Republic? If a voter at the Comitia held on
> to his token for a particular race, not putting it in the jar, I don't
> think it would have been counted as a vote against all candidates; it
> would have been ignored, and the other votes would settle it.
>

And we go back to first law the 97 centuries majority.

> > > Why should the 1% who vote "no" be victorious over the
> > > 2% who vote "yes"?
> >
> > But you are advocating minority legislation which surely can't be a good
> > thing.
>
> You are advocating counting every "abstain" as a "no", and I don't think
> that's a good thing either. By including centuries in which every
> voter abstained in the totals which the "yes" voters must overcome, there's
> no effective difference between an abstain and a "no" at all.
>

That s the very meaning of the "abstain" see above.

> Someone who abstains from voting probably doesn't want their vote to be
> counted as a "no"; they're indicating that they don't want to make a
> decision on that issue at all, probably preferring to leave it to those
> voters who are better informed.
>

Where is it that way (for active "abstain", not for people that merely
don t show up for the vote) ?

Manius Villius Limitanus

> > If the proposal is good enough then enough people will vote for it and
> > the law will pass. If it is not the people will either vote against
> > or abstain.
>
> What of those who truly don't care, or admit that they don't know enough
> about the issue? By counting abstain as "no" you'd be leaving no reasonable
> course of action to those people.
>
> > The original law was imperfect due to our true population and low voter
> > turnout.
>
> Yes. Eventually we'll have enough of a population such that every century
> will cast a vote, the handful of "abstineo"s will be ineffective because
> someone else in the century has made a true vote, and all of this will
> be irrelevant. Until then, however, we need a system that will not
> paralyze us.
>
> Two good laws failed last month, in spite of overwhelming support,
> because of the difficulty of achieving 97 centuries voting "yes" when
> there are only about 110 centuries voting in total. If the current
> proposal does not pass, we will be unable to elect any senior magistrates
> next month. We must have a standard, for now, that is reasonable and
> attainable.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>