Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What this gov't needs....
From:	antoniuscorvusseptimius@--------
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:40:19 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Hibernicus" <legioix@p...> wrote:
> .... is a good old fashioned Dictator.
>
> Gaius "Take no prisoners" Hibernicus

....... is a good hot tub!

Antonius "I'm gonna get mine" Corvus Septimius


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	"Terry Lee Wilson" <twilson@-------->
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:29:09 -0600

Salve,

As a new citizen, and one who has not heretofore participated in the voting process of Nova Roma, I hesitate to enter this discussion. It seems to me, however, that some are expressing concern lest citizens wishing to abstain be unable to exercise this political option. A question then comes to my mind. Is there a mechanism in the law allowing a citizen to actually exercise the option by casting a vote "to abstain" -- similar, that is, to the procedure used in the Senate (as I understand it). Such a mechanism would differentiate nicely between a conscientious citizen wishing to exercise a legitimate political right, and the slackers who do not vote for reasons of apathy.

Pardon me if I speak in ignorance. This process is a great education for me.

Vale,

Gaius Cornelius Pudens

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Reply-To: novaroma@--------
Date: 16 Nov 2001 21:17:46 -0200

>On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 21:09, JusticeCMO wrote:
>> Salve,
>>
>> > Since this is the fianl draft, I must encourage all my fellow citizens
>> > to vote AGAINST this law>>
>>
>> I, on the other hand, would call for all reasonable Nova Romans to
>> wholeheartedly support this law.
>>
>> >>which instaurs a minority government and destroys our democracy.>>
>>
>> On the contrary. Not counting abstentions as votes allows us to be free
>> from the apathy we have seen in past votes. While some few may exercise
>> their right to vote an abstention as some form of political protest, the
>> vast majority of our cives simply do not even bother to vote at all. To
>> count all those who cannot be bothered to vote as a "no" would hold the rest
>> of us hostage to their sad and shameful lack of concern for this nation.
>>
>
>Seems we do not speak of the same thing. The citizen that does not
>bother to vote should not trouble the good funtionning of the
>institutions, that why I first supported that new law.
>Now this final draft will not count the vote of the citizen who votes in
>all conciensce : "I abstain", for example because all canditates seem
>equally evil to him. This is inacceptable in any democracy.
>
>> > It is both anti-historic and anti-democratic not recognizing the right for
>> a citizen to vote against a law without voting against the person that
>> proposes it.>>
>>
>> I guess my only comment to this is that I *believe* that most people vote
>> for or against a law based on whether or not they feel that law is good and
>> just and beneficial to our nation. The notion that some people would vote
>> against a proposal simply because they dislike the *person* who authored it
>> seems rather trivial to me. Laws should be judged on their own merits, in
>> my opinion, not rejected due to some petty personal squabble with the
>> author. The very idea that someone would reject a law if Citizen A puts it
>> forth but support it if Citizen B put it forth seems, well, just plain silly
>> to me.
>>
>
>This is normal procedure in every democratic multi-party parliament.
>
>> My fellow citizens, I implore you to think clearly and decide for yourselves
>> whether or not you think it is fair for those who abstain from voting to
>> hold sway over the voices of those of us who actually take the time to make
>> a decision.
>>
>
>Think clearly if it is fair to deprive the citizen who votes "I abstain"
>of his vote.
>
>Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>> Vale,
>> Priscilla Vedia Serena
>>
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Manius Villius Limitanus.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Book help wanted
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Craig=20Stevenson?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:04:43 +1100 (EST)

--- Craig Stevenson <gaiussentius@-------->
wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Salvete Omnes, 
 
I need help finding certain books, and I was
wondering 
whether anyone out there can help. 
 
The first topic of books I am looking for are
anything 
on the Vandals (where they came from, their
history, 
social structure etc.). 
 
The second lot of books I am looking for are
Appian's 
Roman Histories. I have tried to find them, but
they 
are often scattered and on either normal history
or 
the Civil Wars. If anyone can tell me where I can 
aquire a copy of all of the books of the histories,
I 
would be most grateful. 
 
Thanks in advance, 
 
Valete bene omnes, 
 
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura 
 
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Descartes 
 
<a
href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au">http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au</a>
- Yahoo! Briefcase 
- Manage your files online. 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:30:32 -0600 (CST)

Salve Gai Corneli,

> As a new citizen, and one who has not heretofore participated in the
> voting process of Nova Roma, I hesitate to enter this discussion. It
> seems to me, however, that some are expressing concern lest citizens
> wishing to abstain be unable to exercise this political option.

"Abstain" is still an option, and the current proposal does
not change that at all. When voting for a law, the choices are "yes",
"no", and "abstain".

The current proposal has been put before us in order to modify a previous
law that had an unforseen effect. Currently, a law or a candidate must
achieve "yes" votes from 97 centuries. As we generally only have about
105 centuries voting per election (there should be 193, but some people
don't bother to vote), this is an extremely difficult standard. Two laws
recently failed even though they had "yes" votes from more than 90% of the
people, because they had slightly less than 97 centuries. A tiny handful
of "no" voters defeated an overwhelming majority of "yes" voters.

A century in which no one votes at all, or all voters abstain, is effectively
considered as having voted "no", even though that may not have been the wish
of anyone in that century. The current proposal fixes that -- simply put,
if no one in a century votes, then that century won't count as either
"yes" or "no".

The debate has arose because of a disagreement about the meaning of "abstain".
I see it as the absence of a vote - someone has indicated that they were
present (perhaps casting a real vote on some of the other issues put forth
at the same time), but does not want to cast a vote on that particular
issue - they are neither for nor against, perhaps because of lacking
sufficient information to make an informed decision.

Look at the recent Senate vote for examples of this usage. To one of
the items, I voted "abstineo" with the comment "I know nothing about him".
Only the "yes" and "no" votes for that issues were counted, and my non-vote
did not affect the issue either way.

Manius Villius, on the other hand, considers "abstineo" to be a way to
vote "no" while making a political statement at the same time. He wants
centuries in which all citizens abstain on a particular issue to be
counted among the "no" votes - which I believe to be an abuse of the
meaning of that word. To abstain means to "refrain". It is not a vote;
it is the act of refraining from voting while still indicating that one
is present (and usually voting on other issues at the same time).

> A question then comes to my mind. Is there a mechanism in the law
> allowing a citizen to actually exercise the option by casting a vote
> "to abstain" -- similar, that is, to the procedure used in the Senate
> (as I understand it). Such a mechanism would differentiate nicely
> between a conscientious citizen wishing to exercise a legitimate political
> right, and the slackers who do not vote for reasons of apathy.

All of our elections have had "abstineo" as one of the choices. It is
considered a neutral answer, neither yes nor no, and such non-votes
did not affect the outcome of the election in the slightest. A century
in which all voters abstained would be ignored when computing the results.

Currently, with the requirement that 97 century votes of "yes" be gathered
for a proposal to pass, centuries in which no one votes at all and centuries
in which the only voter(s) abstain, and centuries in which everyone votes
"no" all have the same effect - that century would not be one of the 97
needed.

I proposed to reduce the "97" to "one-half of the centuries casting
votes, plus one" - thus reverting to a simple majority system. A debate
then arose about how to handle centuries in which the only voter(s)
abstain - usually there are about 2 or 3 of these per issue being
voted on.

The question that is before us is, what do you want the choices to be?
With my proposal, the choices that a voter would have are effectively
this:

YES,
NO,
DON'T CARE.

With M. Villius' preferred system, the choices are effictively this:

YES,
NO,
NO THANK YOU SIR.

I think my way of interpreting "I abstain" clearly gives the voter
more choice! That's why I added the clarification to the proposal.
The other meaning of "abstain" is confusing - I think most voters
would assume that it is a choice for neutrality, not a "no" vote.

Our comitia are paralyzed right now because of the "97 requirement".
My proposal fixes that, and does so in a manner that preserves voter
choice. The line about abstaining was added to eliminate ambiguity.

Please vote YES on Item 1. If it does not pass, there will be chaos
next month as we will be completely unable to elect magistrates, due
to the "97 requirement".

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator

http://www.konoko.net/~haase/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What this gov't needs....
From:	Antonius Corvus Septimius <antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:04:28 -0800 (PST)

--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:
> > .... is a good old fashioned Dictator.
> >
>
> ... to throw you in prison.
>
>
> <evil grin>
>
> Draco
>
>
Septimius: Evil indeed, Draco... Indeed.... *LARGER
EVIL GRIN*

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	16 Nov 2001 23:45:02 -0200

On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 22:29, Terry Lee Wilson wrote:
> Salve,
>
> As a new citizen, and one who has not heretofore participated in the voting process of Nova Roma, I hesitate to enter this discussion. It seems to me, however, that some are expressing concern lest citizens wishing to abstain be unable to exercise this political option. A question then comes to my mind. Is there a mechanism in the law allowing a citizen to actually exercise the option by casting a vote "to abstain" -- similar, that is, to the procedure used in the Senate (as I understand it). Such a mechanism would differentiate nicely between a conscientious citizen wishing to exercise a legitimate political right, and the slackers who do not vote for reasons of apathy.
>

Yes this mechanism exists. But under the current law proposal the
citizens that votes "I abstain" will be considered the same as the
"slacker" that dont show up.

That is the reason I am totally opposed to this law.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Pardon me if I speak in ignorance. This process is a great education for me.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gaius Cornelius Pudens
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Michel Loos <loos@-------->
> Reply-To: novaroma@--------
> Date: 16 Nov 2001 21:17:46 -0200
>
> >On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 21:09, JusticeCMO wrote:
> >> Salve,
> >>
> >> > Since this is the fianl draft, I must encourage all my fellow citizens
> >> > to vote AGAINST this law>>
> >>
> >> I, on the other hand, would call for all reasonable Nova Romans to
> >> wholeheartedly support this law.
> >>
> >> >>which instaurs a minority government and destroys our democracy.>>
> >>
> >> On the contrary. Not counting abstentions as votes allows us to be free
> >> from the apathy we have seen in past votes. While some few may exercise
> >> their right to vote an abstention as some form of political protest, the
> >> vast majority of our cives simply do not even bother to vote at all. To
> >> count all those who cannot be bothered to vote as a "no" would hold the rest
> >> of us hostage to their sad and shameful lack of concern for this nation.
> >>
> >
> >Seems we do not speak of the same thing. The citizen that does not
> >bother to vote should not trouble the good funtionning of the
> >institutions, that why I first supported that new law.
> >Now this final draft will not count the vote of the citizen who votes in
> >all conciensce : "I abstain", for example because all canditates seem
> >equally evil to him. This is inacceptable in any democracy.
> >
> >> > It is both anti-historic and anti-democratic not recognizing the right for
> >> a citizen to vote against a law without voting against the person that
> >> proposes it.>>
> >>
> >> I guess my only comment to this is that I *believe* that most people vote
> >> for or against a law based on whether or not they feel that law is good and
> >> just and beneficial to our nation. The notion that some people would vote
> >> against a proposal simply because they dislike the *person* who authored it
> >> seems rather trivial to me. Laws should be judged on their own merits, in
> >> my opinion, not rejected due to some petty personal squabble with the
> >> author. The very idea that someone would reject a law if Citizen A puts it
> >> forth but support it if Citizen B put it forth seems, well, just plain silly
> >> to me.
> >>
> >
> >This is normal procedure in every democratic multi-party parliament.
> >
> >> My fellow citizens, I implore you to think clearly and decide for yourselves
> >> whether or not you think it is fair for those who abstain from voting to
> >> hold sway over the voices of those of us who actually take the time to make
> >> a decision.
> >>
> >
> >Think clearly if it is fair to deprive the citizen who votes "I abstain"
> >of his vote.
> >
> >Manius Villius Limitanus
> >
> >> Vale,
> >> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Vale,
> >> >
> >> > Manius Villius Limitanus.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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:	RE: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	MarcusAudens@--------
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:16:49 -0500 (EST)

Citizens of Nova Roma;

In regard to the "Abstain" question, the extended argument seems to me
to be a consistent attempt on the part of our Senator Octavius to
convince another gentlemen of something that most people have learned in
thier first attempt to deal with Robert's Rules of Order.

I must agree that the term "Abstain" is NOT the same thing as a "NO"
vote. At least not in my language , experience or intent. I use the
term "Abstain" infrequently, simply as the only way to deal with a
question for which I have no answer. It usually doesn't happen all that
often but when it does, I "ABSTAIN' from answering the question which
means that I do not have enough information to decide for or against the
item in question. That situation seems pretty basic to me.

Now if there is a problem in our voting system, as I understand there
is, then Senator Octavius' solution sounds reasonable, and it still
allows the term "Abstain" to be used as I believe it should be used.

Therefore, after listening to this long term argument, I must say that I
definately support Senator Octavius in his views on this question, not
only for the reason's I have outlined, but also because he has in the
past demonstraed a clear understanding of his suggestions and solutions
for problems that have arisen in Nova Roma. He is a reasnable
gentleman, and a patient one, as well as one who is given to thoughtful
consideration of problems similar to this kind, and to possible
solutions which reflect the easiest and simplest directions in which to
move. Considering the two sides of this argument, and the gentleman
engaged therein, I believe that I shall stay on the side of the most
reasonable, in my humble view, and let the more complicated of the
appeals relate to those who are dedicated to a more complicated
solution, with a less feasable result in the long term.

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 21:28:40 -0600 (CST)

Salve,

> Yes this mechanism exists. But under the current law proposal the
> citizens that votes "I abstain" will be considered the same as the
> "slacker" that dont show up.

Not at all. He'll still be counted as being there for tribal assigment
purposes, and he'll be able to vote on those other issues that he truly
does care about that are on the same ballot.

I think that's a far more useful meaning of "abstain" than to twist
it to mean "no".

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator

http://www.konoko.net/~haase/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: nota patres et matres familiae
From:	MarcusAudens@--------
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:35:50 -0500 (EST)

Master Caius Pueteus Germanicus;

You are certainly correct that any organization needs a financial basis
in order to do anything effective, and all such organizations collect a
degree of funding to further that need.

The problem in Nova Roma is two-fold; the first is that a $25.00 fee in
the United States is not a significant one, but $25.00 in Pannonia and
other parts of the world can be the difference between hunger and
satisfaction, personal cold or warmth. The second problem is the
security of these funds, that problem was projected to the fore by the
determinaton of a former NR Citizen who absconded with funds entrusted
to his care, because of his determination of the fairness of such an
action.

Incorporated in these problems are the individual pride of people in
different venues, situations and in different parts of the world. All
these problems have been hashed over ad nauseum since my first year's
proposal of consideration of a tax for NR over three years ago, which
was quite correctly refused consideration, because of the obvious
problems involved. Many ideas have been offered, but really no concrete
offerings have been shown to solve all the problems. So while it is
fairly easy to agree that financial support is necessary for NR's long
term goals, it is not nearly so easy to solve with understanding and
consideration all those specific problems that arise from differing
views, regional values, individual pride, and definate financial
pressures.

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:10:25 -0000

Salvete;

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 22:29, Terry Lee Wilson wrote:
>
> Yes this mechanism exists. But under the current law proposal the
> citizens that votes "I abstain" will be considered the same as the
> "slacker" that dont show up.
>
> That is the reason I am totally opposed to this law.

I won't comment on your motives for "totally opposing" this law; your
record heretofore speaks for itself.

However, regarding the case in point, you are incorrect.

You seem to be confusing a vote to abstain with something akin
to "none of the above". They are not the same; perhaps your lack of
English as a first language is to blame for this particular
misunderstanding on your part. To abstain is to simply refrain from
voting for any of the proferred options. To vote for "none of the
above" is to, in essence, cast ones vote for a new option with the
intention of forcing a new vote with (presumably) new choices.

Since you seem to be beating the drum of historicity, you should
understand that in the context of historical practice, an abstention
is indeed historical, while a "none of the above" vote is not.

Let us not forget what it is, exactly, we attempt to reconstruct in
our own manner. Voters would inscribe the names of their favored
candidates on tablets, and drop those tablets into clay jars
(cistae). If one wanted to abstain (i.e., not vote for either
candidate), one would simply not drop one's tablet into the cista
(or, more likely, simply not show up at all). I know of no ancient
precident for voters being able to reject all the available
candidates specifically; please point me to a reference for such if
you know of one.

In the case of our own reconstruction, you seem to miss the subtle
difference between our own system of voting and the ancient, which
forces us to provide an option to abstain. In ancient practice, since
they were able to hold elections in the space of a single day, they
were not forced to combine elections for multiple offices, or
consider more than one lex, at a time. Thus, to abstain, one had
merely to not show up.

In our modern practice, on the other hand, our elections take weeks
to complete. If we limited our voting sessions to single offices, or
single leges, our comitiae would never _not_ be in session. Thus, we
are forced to hold multiple votes and elections concurrently.
However, in our desire to hold as true as possible to the ancient
practice, we must needs provide a method by which someone can opt out
of some votes while participating in others, should that be his or
her wish. Thus, our need to hold multiple elections concurrently
requires that we provide an "abstain" option; so that people can vote
for one office without being forced, in turn, to vote for others for
which they might not wish to vote. "Abstain" is the same as "didn't
want to vote".

For example, assume there is an election for Consul, and another for
Aedile. Marcus wants very much to vote in the election for Consul,
but couldn't care less who wins Aedile. Since the web form has spots
for both Consul and Aedile, it wouldn't ordinarily be possible for
Marcus to vote for the former without having somehow to cast a vote
for the latter. Since we provide the option to abstain, Marcus could,
should he wish, vote for Consul and abstain in the election from
Aedile. In the ancient parlance, he would show up to drop his tablet
in the Cista for Consul, but stay home in the vote for Aedile.

In short, we allow people to abstain in votes because otherwise they
would have to vote for a candidate they might not want to vote for.

To take your logic, it could be said that people with an honest lack
of interest in a particular vote or election would be co-opted into
the "no" category against their will. How fair is that? Surely
someone with a genuine lack of preference on an issue or candidate
should be allowed to pass, while being given the opportunity to vote
positively on other measures up for consideration at the same time.

You want another option; "none of the above". You yourself raised the
question of historicity, and that is most definitely not an
historical Roman voting practice. I submit that your argument is
unsound, and wholeheartedly urge all my fellow Citizens to vote in
favor of the measure as presented. It is necessary, fair, and
historical.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Welcome New Citizens
From:	MarcusAudens@--------
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:10:33 -0500 (EST)

New Citizens of Nova Roma;

I wish to take a moment of your valuable time and welcome you, most
heartily, to this micronation, the largest of it's kind in our internet
world. We are pleased to have you among us, with your fresh ideas, your
myriad of skills , and your willingness to give of yourselves to learn
of the wide varieties of the Roman Culture and engage as you will and
may in the activities offered here in Nova Roma.

Let me introduce myself--I am Marcus Minucius Audens and I take my name
from a Roman soldier who served in the Roman Province of Britannica in
the XXth Legion. probably in the first century A.D. He was as I am
proud to be, a student of Geography and a Gromaciti (Military Surveyor).

I am a Magistrate of the micronation, and I am much honored to be the
founder of the Sodalitas (organization or club) Militarium where we are
pleased to undertake discussions and research, as well as the sharing of
ideas about the ancient Roman Military Machine.

I am also Honored to hold the position in the Nova Roman Senate as the
Senate Respondorum, and as such I am pleased to present formally any
information to and from the Senate to the Citizens of Nova Roma and to
answer any general questions that you may have. I cannot guarantee
always to have an answer for all questions but you have my promise that
I will do my best to put you in touch with some one who may have an
answer, and to remind that person that an answer is requested. If I may
be of assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me!!!

Welcome to Nova Roma my friends, and welcome to the world of Roman
Culture, Military Prowess, Roman Religio, the study of Laws, Literature,
Architechture, and all the other facinating areas of Roman Studies that
can be tapped here for your interest and delight!!!

Be Welcome, Be Happy Among Us and Be Eager In Your Roman Enthusiasm;

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens


Subject:	[novaroma] Propraetorship of Venedia
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:32:59 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
Senatui et Quiritibus Omnibus S.P.D.

I am disappointed that the Senate did not see fit to
appoint me governor of the Provincia Venedia. Considering
the overwhelming - indeed effectively unanimous - support
of the provincial citizens for my candidacy expressed to
the Senate in petitions, it is certainly a slap in the
faces of the whole citizenry here, and will be so
perceived.

I had hoped that the Senate would have shown the maturity
to work together with me, since I had been willing to work
with them by expressing my willingness to take on this
post. And indeed I am the only Venedian meeting the
Senate's own guidelines for being a governor - which would
apparently mean that the Senate intends to let the province
drift, just to score a political or personal point against
me. It is hard to see in that the sense of responsibility
that the Senate is theoretically supposed to provide in
this republic.

It is regrettable, surely, that many of those voting
against me are doubtless still stung by the regrettable
necessity that I felt some time ago of calling the majority
(not all) of them "moral idiots" in connection with their
treatment of Marius and minorities he represented. That
they should be stung is natural, but a citizen has to speak
out when there is evil in high places, and I did my simple
duty for the welfare of Nova Roma.

I would like to thank the honourable senators who were so
good as vote or speak up for me and the desires of the
Roman people of Venedia. And I note with sympathy that
Senator Probus was forced to promise to abstain in order to
get my candidature voted on at all - which I think reflects
on the manoeuverings of my opponents most unfavourably. A
senator has to give up his vote just to get a gubernatorial
candidate voted on for a province that needs a governor and
has the unanimous support of the citizenry?! Sounds a bit
irregular, perhaps?

I am not surprised by this result, but being an optimist
by nature, I had had a bit of hope for something better
from the Senate.

Valete!

***ITEM II: Appointment of Governor of Provincia Venedia
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus is hereby appointed propraetor
of provincia
Venedia.

*FAILED* 3 FOR, 11 AGAINST, 1 ABSTENTION

PC ANTIQUO (No). Formosanus has many fine qualities, but
I do not
believe he has demonstrated the dignitas necessary for a
governor.
MCJ ANTIQUO
LCSF ANTIQUO
LEC ANTIQUO
QFM ANTIQUO I had mixed feelings about this.
Nevertheless I'm am not
entirely convinced Marcus Apollonius is only on his best
behavior to get
this seat. I need to see a sustained effort, with no gain
before I'm
sure he's changed.
CFD UTI ROGAS I�m sure that this should be done due to
the reasons I
mentioned in this august body.
AGG ANTIQUO Although I think Formosanus is a valuable
citizen in other
aspects (namely for the promotion of Latin language), I
don't think he
can serve well our Respublica as governor.
AICPM ABSTINEO I do remember how we were discussing whether
to put
this
issue to vote or to reject the candidacy of Formosanus. I
have tempt
you to put it into Senate vote. On the other hand I also
remember that I
have promised to abstain from voting "Yes".
DIPI ANTIQUO Formosanus has not shown the goodwill to work
with the
magistrates and the Senate for the good of Nova Roma.
TLF UTI ROGAS The cives Venediae have unanimously
endorsed M
Apollonius. And, while there has been substantial friction
between him
and many members of this Senate, I believe that he will do
his best to
foster an active provincia if appointed. Active provinciae
are
immensely important to the Respublica, as they, more than
anything else,
will foster a committed and active citizenry that goes
beyond the
Internet. This is more important than personal and
political
differences of opinion. And, should we absolutely fail to
be able to
work with each other, this body can remove him from the
office at any time.
CMM ANTIQUO I vote no. I believe that Formosanus is the
strongest
Latinist in Nova Roma, and has a great deal to contribute
to Nova Roma.
I cannot, however, see fit to appointing him to such a
vital position
given his history of of raising strife and fomenting
discontent against
the Senate and magistrates.
MOG ANTIQUO
LSAO ANTIQUO I am not convinced that M. Apollonius
Formosanus has in
mind the best interests of Nova Roma as a Roman Republic.
His zeal for
modernizing it it still worries me.
GTTC UTI ROGAS
FVG ANTIQUO

_________________________________________________
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Psterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae
Aedilis Plebeius, Amicus Dignitatis
Magister Scholae Latinae
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
Gens Apollonia: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/
The Gens Apollonia is accepting new members.
____________________________________________________
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:53:37 -0800 (PST)

Ave,
On this matter I agree with Manius Villius
Limitanus of voting against this law. I do not take
the stance as Limitanus in reference to the democracy
matter. My reasoning for opposing this law is its
lack of showing a true majority. In the quote cited
by Limitanus I find that a simple majority is not
simply 50%+1. If a law passes by a vote of 51-49 that
does not show that a true majority supported it but
that it barely has favor and hence is weak. That +1
should be increased to a greater number to show that
majority. If that one segment were changed I would
not have opposition but rather favor the law.
However, it does not from my point of view create a
majority.
Quintus Cornelius Caesar

--- Michel Loos <loos@--------> wrote:
> > VOTE AGENDA
> > 3. "A simple majority" is hereby defined as "one
> half of the number
> > of centuries casting votes, plus one".
> Abstentions are not considered
> > votes, and a century in which all voters
> abstained shall not be counted
> > toward this total.
>
> Salvete,
>
> Since this is the fianl draft, I must encourage all
> my fellow citizens
> to vote AGAINST this law which instaurs a minority
> government and
> destroys our democracy.
> It is both anti-historic and anti-democratic not
> recognizing the right
> for a citizen to vote against a law without voting
> against the person
> that proposes it.
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus.
>
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:08:58 -0800

Ave,

However, given the voting record that has never gone above 35% the only yardstick that we can use to judge the "majority" is based on the majority of those citizens who took the time out of their lives to cast a vote. In this respect I support the lex and will urge my gens members, my friends and my peers to support this lex.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Loughlin
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule

Ave,
On this matter I agree with Manius Villius
Limitanus of voting against this law. I do not take
the stance as Limitanus in reference to the democracy
matter. My reasoning for opposing this law is its
lack of showing a true majority. In the quote cited
by Limitanus I find that a simple majority is not
simply 50%+1. If a law passes by a vote of 51-49 that
does not show that a true majority supported it but
that it barely has favor and hence is weak. That +1
should be increased to a greater number to show that
majority. If that one segment were changed I would
not have opposition but rather favor the law.
However, it does not from my point of view create a
majority.
Quintus Cornelius Caesar

--- Michel Loos <loos@--------> wrote:
> > VOTE AGENDA
> > 3. "A simple majority" is hereby defined as "one
> half of the number
> > of centuries casting votes, plus one".
> Abstentions are not considered
> > votes, and a century in which all voters
> abstained shall not be counted
> > toward this total.
>
> Salvete,
>
> Since this is the fianl draft, I must encourage all
> my fellow citizens
> to vote AGAINST this law which instaurs a minority
> government and
> destroys our democracy.
> It is both anti-historic and anti-democratic not
> recognizing the right
> for a citizen to vote against a law without voting
> against the person
> that proposes it.
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus.
>
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	"Decimus Iunius Silanus" <danedwardsuk@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:30:49 -0000

Salve Marce Octavi

> The question that is before us is, what do you want the choices to be?
> With my proposal, the choices that a voter would have are effectively
> this:
>
> YES,
> NO,
> DON'T CARE.

This, unfortunately, is where we disagree. I do not consider the decision to abstain to be the equivalent of 'I don't care'. Quite the opposite in fact. The decision to abstain can in reality be a very considered one and may in many respects be a very difficult one for the voter. Consider the current legislation. I wholehartedly understand and support the need for a revision of the current voting laws. However, as much as I support the principle of the proposed ammendment, I consider some portion of the proposal to be flawed. I cannot support a law that may disregard to all intents and purposes the considered votes of potentially many voters. However, given the necessity of a law change, I find that I also have great difficulty in voting against it. So I find myself in a situation where I may have to abstain. This however, certainly does not mean that I 'don't care' as you put it. On the contarary, I actually care a great deal.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:47:43 -0600 (CST)

Salve Quinte Corneli,

> My reasoning for opposing this law is its lack of showing a true majority.

51% *is* a "true majority". Where have you ever seen a definition of
majority that excludes this? What you are asking for is more properly
called a "supermajority", and it is not something that was part of the
Roman popular voting tradition.

> In the quote cited by Limitanus I find that a simple majority is not
> simply 50%+1.

That is absolutely incorrect. The definition of "simple majority" is,
and always has been, one more than half of the votes.

>From http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/900/1922-31-1.html
"Generally, a simple majority (one-half of the voting members
present plus one) in favor of a motion passes the motion."

>From http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ip/ip15/ip15.htm, in a section
entitled "Parliamentary Terms to Know":
"Majority - one more than half of the number voting. If 10 ballots
are counted, six would be a majority. "

>From Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
3.a. a number greater than half of a total
3.c. the preponderant quantity or share 50% plus one is a simple majority.

50% plus one is a simple majority. That definition is widely accepted.

> If a law passes by a vote of 51-49 that does not show that a
> true majority supported it

Yes, it does. Please consult a dictionary or a book of parliamentary
procedure. A "simple majority" is 50% plus one. A "supermajority"
is a number of votes over some higher threshold, usually two thirds.
"True majority" is a term that has no meaning in parliamentary procedure.

I understand that your preference is a for a superamajority, but please
stop using the other words incorrectly!

> but that it barely has favor and hence is weak.

The opposition to it has even less favor and is even weaker.

> That +1 should be increased to a greater number to show that
> majority.

One half plus one shows majority by definition. Majority rule is not
you want, you want something else. By requiring a supermajority to
accomplish anything you will be instituting a tyranny of a minority,
where 40 "no" voters can thwart 60 "yes" voters. This is wrong. That
is grossly unfair and undemocratic.

I am attempting to ensure that majority voting shall be the system we
shall use. It is fair, democratic, and Roman.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator

http://www.konoko.net/~haase/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:56:27 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

A minor formatting error in my previous message:

> >From Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
> 3.a. a number greater than half of a total
> 3.c. the preponderant quantity or share 50% plus one is a simple majority.

There should have been a linefeed after "share" - the sentence that follows
isn't from the dictonary definition, it's my commentary that followed.

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator

http://www.konoko.net/~haase/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Propraetorship of Venedia
From:	MarcusAudens@--------
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:57:33 -0500 (EST)

Aedile Marcus Appolonius Formosanus;

I, in turn, regret that your message, filled with your obvious
disappointment of being thwarted of your objectve by the overwhelming
majority of the Senate, should be aired on the NR Main List. It was
unfortunate that my vote went electronically astray, and could not be
counted (I am somewhat of a tyro in the internet line), however, I would
have you know that I also voted against your candidacy.

You and I have discussed at length your views in many areas, and for the
most part I find that it is impossible for me to agree with most of your
views, and certainly I cannot agree with your accusations against the
Magistrates of Nova Roma. I am aware that my background differs from
yours, but my education, life experience, and those standards which have
seen me to the Chairmanship of several organizations, the advancement of
enlisted to officer status in the military, and to complete successfully
three life careers tells me that your desires for Nova Roma are not
suitable for what we wish to do, nor for what we wish Nova Roma to
become.

I object to your wording regarding my Senate Colleague, the Govenor of
Pannonia. His vote to ABSTAIN was his own decision and not the decision
of the Senate. If he had been forced in any way to subject his vote to
such a agreement, I should have objected strenuously and on the Main
List, as I have in other areas of concern.

In my estimation, your last message with it's accusations and it's
untrue allegations toward the Senate are a definite further reason why
the wisdom of the collective Senate has denied you your request.
Further it is full evidence that those objections voiced by the Senators
who rejected your application were correct in every respect.

The Citizens of Venedia need not "drift" at all, as there is at least
one with whom I have spoken who is fully qualified in, my humble
opinion, to serve as govenor. However, that person chooses not to do
so, and you refuse, apparently because of your pride, to assist that
person to be the govenor, so the decision lies with the citizens of
Venedia, and not with the Senate as you would have everone believe. The
Citizens of Venedia are all adults, and are fully capable of making
their own decisions. It must be apparent to all, even to the Citizens
of Venedia, from your disappointing letter that you are unsuitable to
take the position of Govenor in the eyes of the Senate, and thereby in
the eyes of the Citizens of Nova Roma, who have seen fit to elevate
those men and women to the Senate. You would now tear down that body of
decision because they have dared to deny you your desires. Others who
see the world more clearly, might say that your past determinations,
accusations, declarations and disruptive attitude, in this micronation,
would indicate that your failure at the hands of the Senate would be a
good thing for Nova Roma, and that the collective Senate has again
proven it's worth, as it has on so many past occasions. The Senators
are not the "moral idiots" of your claim, they are not the self-seeking
body that you accuse them of, and they are not targeted on you, but
rather you on them. They have in the past acted for the best of Nova
Roma to thier best of thier collective ability, and I believe that as
long as we rely upon the Citizens of Nova Roma to approve of the
Senators who serve by the method of election

(with the exception of those few who have been appointed by the Senate
by having evidenced great service to those same citizens within Nova
Roma)

the Senate shall prove to be a viable and reliable standard for NR.
Those Senators have worked hard throughout the years to make Nova Roma a
success, and in comparison with other similar organizations, they have
done well.

I have said in the past that I believe you fully capable of being a
suitable governor should you wish to do so, but your past attitudes, do
not, in my view, add up to a true interest in making Nova Roma a better,
stronger, and more appealing place to be, but rather, in my further
view, it is a place, as you see it, for you to air your particular views
which are eventually even rejected by those whom you purport to defend.

I am sure that you will see fit to respond to this message in your usual
way, but I wanted you to know that although, my vote was not registered
due to my probable electronic mistake somewhere along the line, exactly
where I stand in relation to your current situation. The decision has
been made, and the Senate Agenda is completed. It is time now to move
on, to contemplate on the whys of the decision, and perhaps to learn
from them. It is my hope that you will do so, for it is my genuine
belief that once you discard your determination to break Nova Roma, and
decide to work with those who have this micronation's best interests at
heart and who have proven that fact again and again over past years,
that you could be a positive asset to Nova Roma. As it is, in my view,
you are a brake on what this micronation can and will become, and I, for
one, have little patience with those in this world whose only apparent
skill or desire is to act as a brake on the desires of the very obvious
majority, working hard toward mutually agreeable goals set down in clear
wording for all to see.

Marcus Minucius Audens


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:54:01 +0100

Ave Priscilla,

I have been following this discussion without any intervention. I do however, et the end, implore you to support the issues brought before the Comitia, since they will make political life easier and NR just the more real!

Vale optime in pace deorum!

Caius Puteus Germanicus
Rogator et Civis Provinciae Novae Romae Galliae / Germaniae Inferioris

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gens reduction/ideas?
From:	"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:00:49 +0100

Alve Draco!

I agree with you on the first point being:
>- On gens reduction, a good option might simply be to have people who want
to create new gentes pay a certain fee, while registration with an existing
gens would be for free. But I wouldn't be in favour of having a tax per
caput for gentes, not only would people like Censor Sulla be bankrupt by the
end of the year, it would also encourage people to form even more gentes.

I do however disagree with the simple exemption of certain groups, since we don't have any account of anybody's daily life (being a student, working man/woman, etc.). We cannot control the income of our cives either, since we are not positionned to dispose of the information taxadministrators of a macronation have. I agree with the principle, in which I think the rich should not be privilledged by letting them join NR and descouraging the poor with taxes. I think the only solution exists therein that anybody wanting to be exempted from the taxes, sends a message to the censores explaining why. This information will of course be dealt with in a very sincere and discrete way.

Vale optime in pace deorum!

Caius Puteus Germanicus
Rogator et Civis Provinciae Novae Romae Galliae / Germaniae Inferioris

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: nota patres et matres familiae
From:	"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:58:37 +0100

Ave Marce Municie Audens, Senator Honorabilis,
ave omnes!

I agree with you completely that, given the global scale of NR as an organization, it is difficult to see what $1 means to less priviledged regions than the States or Western Europe. I am glad that we agree opun the need of funds for the growth of NR as an organization. Is it a possible solution to thrust the tax collecting to the governers of provinciae? Probably they have a clear view on the possibilities their province and cives have? They could split up the money into two parts, one for the provincia and one for the central administration. This will also enable local provinces to organize activities for promotion of NR and the Romanitas in general.

Of course you correctly assumed a second problem: the one of the disappearing magistrates, taking the collected money with them. Perhaps the necessity of two signatures can solve the problem on the provincial level: the governer's signature + one person from the same provincia, designated by the senate. This designation results in a question towards the civis whether he or she will accept this mission. When he or she doesn't, a next person will be designated etc. This function does not need to change every year. One of the criteria the senate can use is: active or not on the main list or other activities of NR, length of citizenship, maturity (age), occupied functions, etc.

I assume that the central administration is secure enough, or that the same principle of two signatures is possible too?

This doesn't need to be an unhistorical measure, since each higher magistrate had his own quastor in historical Rome. The only problem is the difference between being chosen by the Comitiae or being designated by the Senatus. I am especially promoting designation, since personal ambition and eventual bad intentions can not play here. One can not simply apply for the function.

Vale optime in pace deorum!

Caius Puteus Germanicus
Rogator et Civis Provinciae Novae Romae Galliae / Germaniae Inferioris

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Propraetorship of Venedia
From:	antoniuscorvusseptimius@--------
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:00:28 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
> Senatui et Quiritibus Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> I am disappointed that the Senate did not see fit to
> appoint me governor of the Provincia Venedia. Considering
> the overwhelming - indeed effectively unanimous - support
> of the provincial citizens for my candidacy expressed to
> the Senate in petitions, it is certainly a slap in the
> faces of the whole citizenry here, and will be so
> perceived.

SEPTIMIUS: Then, shouldnt it be they who should post, sir?
If it is such a slap in the face to the WHOLE citizenry,
then their perception will and shall be voiced without your input.

> I had hoped that the Senate would have shown the maturity
> to work together with me,

SEPTIMIUS: Let us say that the Senate is immature... Then why would
you deal with them, since you are the poster boy of maturity?

since I had been willing to work
> with them by expressing my willingness to take on this
> post. And indeed I am the only Venedian meeting the
> Senate's own guidelines for being a governor - which would
> apparently mean that the Senate intends to let the province
> drift,

Septimius: Is that so? I would like to read the Senate's response

just to score a political or personal point against
> me.

Septimius: I doubt that it would take so little...

It is hard to see in that the sense of responsibility
> that the Senate is theoretically supposed to provide in
> this republic.

Septimius: Really? In which Republic are you refering to, sir?

> It is regrettable, surely, that many of those voting
> against me are doubtless still stung by the regrettable
> necessity that I felt some time ago of calling the majority
> (not all) of them "moral idiots"

Septimius: A rather "immature" lable, in my opinion.

in connection with their
> treatment of Marius and minorities he represented.

Septimius: Shall we go through Marius' situation again?... I would be
MORE than eager to bring it back up..

That
> they should be stung is natural, but a citizen has to speak
> out when there is evil in high places,

Septimius: And evil can dwell in low places as well

and I did my simple
> duty for the welfare of Nova Roma.

Septimius: As I have said before.... Speak for yourself

>
> I would like to thank the honourable senators who were so
> good as vote or speak up for me and the desires of the
> Roman people of Venedia. And I note with sympathy that
> Senator Probus was forced to promise to abstain in order to
> get my candidature voted on at all - which I think reflects
> on the manoeuverings of my opponents most unfavourably. A
> senator has to give up his vote just to get a gubernatorial
> candidate voted on for a province that needs a governor and
> has the unanimous support of the citizenry?! Sounds a bit
> irregular, perhaps?
>
> I am not surprised by this result,

Septimius: Of course, paranoia does that to a person

but being an optimist
> by nature, I had had a bit of hope for something better
> from the Senate.

Septimius: Your expectations of what others should think.. Hmmmm....
You would think that they had a mind of their own.. correct?

>
> Valete!
>
>
> ***ITEM II: Appointment of Governor of Provincia Venedia
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus is hereby appointed propraetor
> of provincia
> Venedia.
>
> *FAILED* 3 FOR, 11 AGAINST, 1 ABSTENTION

Septimius: We remember, that what makes us stronger.
_____Est quaedam voluptas flere______
To cry is a certain pleasure

te curam, Septimius


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	17 Nov 2001 08:37:22 -0200

On Sat, 2001-11-17 at 02:10, Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 22:29, Terry Lee Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Yes this mechanism exists. But under the current law proposal the
> > citizens that votes "I abstain" will be considered the same as the
> > "slacker" that dont show up.
> >
> > That is the reason I am totally opposed to this law.
>
> I won't comment on your motives for "totally opposing" this law; your
> record heretofore speaks for itself.
>
> However, regarding the case in point, you are incorrect.
>
> You seem to be confusing a vote to abstain with something akin
> to "none of the above". They are not the same; perhaps your lack of
> English as a first language is to blame for this particular
> misunderstanding on your part. To abstain is to simply refrain from
> voting for any of the proferred options. To vote for "none of the
> above" is to, in essence, cast ones vote for a new option with the
> intention of forcing a new vote with (presumably) new choices.

The "none of the above" is an elementary option in elections, even in
not so democratic states. For example a unique candidate but the
citizens can not vote for him, therefore the election is run.

>
> Since you seem to be beating the drum of historicity, you should
> understand that in the context of historical practice, an abstention
> is indeed historical, while a "none of the above" vote is not.
>

Relative majority is not historical. That is why so many citizen have
proposed as a solution the drastic reduction in the number of centuries
instead of the simple majority rule.

Simple majority is anti-historical, not counting the "none of the above"
is anti-democratic.

> Let us not forget what it is, exactly, we attempt to reconstruct in
> our own manner. Voters would inscribe the names of their favored
> candidates on tablets, and drop those tablets into clay jars
> (cistae). If one wanted to abstain (i.e., not vote for either
> candidate), one would simply not drop one's tablet into the cista
> (or, more likely, simply not show up at all). I know of no ancient
> precident for voters being able to reject all the available
> candidates specifically; please point me to a reference for such if
> you know of one.
>

A numbers of elections had to be hold several times because no majority
showed (355BC for ex.) because the absolute majority was the rule (just
like it could happen under our actual law)

> In the case of our own reconstruction, you seem to miss the subtle
> difference between our own system of voting and the ancient, which
> forces us to provide an option to abstain. In ancient practice, since
> they were able to hold elections in the space of a single day, they
> were not forced to combine elections for multiple offices, or
> consider more than one lex, at a time. Thus, to abstain, one had
> merely to not show up.
>

Yes, I missed that, because there is no tecnical obligation to provide
that option. One could easily type owns voter code N times in order to
vote (or not) for N different subjects. I thought it was a "modernity"
like the usual "blank" vote option provided in democracies.
Well if it is not a "non of the above" it should be.

> In our modern practice, on the other hand, our elections take weeks
> to complete. If we limited our voting sessions to single offices, or
> single leges, our comitiae would never _not_ be in session. Thus, we
> are forced to hold multiple votes and elections concurrently.
> However, in our desire to hold as true as possible to the ancient
> practice, we must needs provide a method by which someone can opt out
> of some votes while participating in others, should that be his or
> her wish. Thus, our need to hold multiple elections concurrently
> requires that we provide an "abstain" option; so that people can vote
> for one office without being forced, in turn, to vote for others for
> which they might not wish to vote. "Abstain" is the same as "didn't
> want to vote".
>

It does not "require" it, see above.

> For example, assume there is an election for Consul, and another for
> Aedile. Marcus wants very much to vote in the election for Consul,
> but couldn't care less who wins Aedile. Since the web form has spots
> for both Consul and Aedile, it wouldn't ordinarily be possible for
> Marcus to vote for the former without having somehow to cast a vote
> for the latter. Since we provide the option to abstain, Marcus could,
> should he wish, vote for Consul and abstain in the election from
> Aedile. In the ancient parlance, he would show up to drop his tablet
> in the Cista for Consul, but stay home in the vote for Aedile.
>
> In short, we allow people to abstain in votes because otherwise they
> would have to vote for a candidate they might not want to vote for.
>

And still if a majority of people that showed up and refused to vote for
a candidate you want him to be elected. Does n t it seem to be
incoherent ?

> To take your logic, it could be said that people with an honest lack
> of interest in a particular vote or election would be co-opted into
> the "no" category against their will. How fair is that? Surely
> someone with a genuine lack of preference on an issue or candidate
> should be allowed to pass, while being given the opportunity to vote
> positively on other measures up for consideration at the same time.
>

Separate the votes, same day but different cista, I am sure it takes
only a few minutes, perhaps an hour, for our curator araneum to arrange
that.

> You want another option; "none of the above". You yourself raised the
> question of historicity, and that is most definitely not an
> historical Roman voting practice. I submit that your argument is
> unsound, and wholeheartedly urge all my fellow Citizens to vote in
> favor of the measure as presented. It is necessary, fair, and
> historical.
>

Historicity: absolute majority
Modern democracy : relative majority of all expressed votes (including
the "none of the above")

The actual law proposition is none of those two, it is both
anti-historical and anti-democratic.

VOTE NO

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	17 Nov 2001 08:44:48 -0200

On Sat, 2001-11-17 at 02:53, Michael Loughlin wrote:
> Ave,
> On this matter I agree with Manius Villius
> Limitanus of voting against this law. I do not take
> the stance as Limitanus in reference to the democracy
> matter. My reasoning for opposing this law is its
> lack of showing a true majority. In the quote cited
> by Limitanus I find that a simple majority is not
> simply 50%+1. If a law passes by a vote of 51-49 that
> does not show that a true majority supported it but
> that it barely has favor and hence is weak. That +1
> should be increased to a greater number to show that
> majority. If that one segment were changed I would
> not have opposition but rather favor the law.
> However, it does not from my point of view create a
> majority.

Your version seems also fine to me. Another modern democracy practice is
the 2/3 majority of votes discounting the "none of the aboves", this to
is democratic.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Quintus Cornelius Caesar
>
> --- Michel Loos <loos@--------> wrote:
> > > VOTE AGENDA
> > > 3. "A simple majority" is hereby defined as "one
> > half of the number
> > > of centuries casting votes, plus one".
> > Abstentions are not considered
> > > votes, and a century in which all voters
> > abstained shall not be counted
> > > toward this total.
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Since this is the fianl draft, I must encourage all
> > my fellow citizens
> > to vote AGAINST this law which instaurs a minority
> > government and
> > destroys our democracy.
> > It is both anti-historic and anti-democratic not
> > recognizing the right
> > for a citizen to vote against a law without voting
> > against the person
> > that proposes it.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Manius Villius Limitanus.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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] New webpage
From:	"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:13:37 +0100

Friends, Romans, Countrymen,

Please feel free to visit my new homepage: http://www.geocities.com/caius_puteus_germanicus/

Hope to see you all there!

Vale optime in pace deorum!

Caius Puteus Germanicus
Rogator et Civis Provinciae Novae Romae Galliae / Germaniae Inferioris

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] New webpage
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:18:41 -0500

Salve Caius Puteus Germanicus,

Excellent website citizen! It is always great to see our community growing
and expressing its self online. I wish you the best of luck on the future
development of your site.

Vale,

"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/
--


Subject:	[novaroma] Germania Inferior has its own website!!!
From:	"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 18:48:26 +0100

Ave Romani!

Good news, the yet-to-be-recognized new province of Germania Inferior, the northern part of what is now Gallia, has its own website! As you may have already heard, a motion has been sent to the senatus in which we, in accordance with the poll results organised by our Propraetor, and by the mouth of our legatus Draco, ask to be separate from the rest of Gallia for historical and language reasons. I hope the website will help proving our suggested province is viable in itself and hopes to grow fastly in the future. There are already 20 cives listed today, and our first meeting on the occasion of the Saturnalia, is held with a real Roman cena, thanks to Agrippina and Claudia Putea.

Especially for those citizens from the region with whom I have fequently contact via email, please send suggestions for the website to me! I hope we can build it to a real 'virtual home' for all present day & future cives from the region.

Here's the address: http://www.geocities.com/germania_inferior/index.html

Vale optime in pace deorum!

Caius Puteus Germanicus
Rogator et Civis Provinciae Novae Romae Galliae / Germaniae Inferioris

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:27:19 -0600

Salvete

I believe that there is a common misunderstanding of some of M' Villius'
recent assertions regarding voting procedure. He has stated that an
abstention is equivalent to a no vote, but that it does not entail a
commensurate "vote against" the magistrate who put forth the item to be
voted upon.

I believe this stems from modern parliamentary procedure. In most
modern parliaments, a vote on a given law is often seen as a referendum
on the popularity of the magistrate who promulgated the law. In this
system, abstentions are, indeed, used to vote against the law without
implying disagreement with the magistrate in general. A no vote, on the
other hand, is a rejection of the law *and* a statement of dislike for
the magistrate who promulgated it.

In such a system, then, there are four possibilities:
1. YES
2. ABSTAIN (No, without prejudice)
3. NO (No, implying disagreement with magistrate's course in general)
4. STAY HOME (a true abstention)
(Note that a law requires a certain number of yes votes to pass.)

In this system, it is often true that a magistrate will resign after an
overwhelming 'no' vote, but not after an overwhelming 'abstention'.

The preceding system is not used in countries that do not have a
parliamentary government, such as the United States or ancient Rome.
However, I do not know of any instances in which a century failed to
return at least one vote for or against a measure in the ancient record.
Therefore, it is impossible to say whether the ancients would have
regarded the mass abstention as a vote against the measure or not. In
their case, the problem never arose because there were already quite a
few thousand cives when there were only thirty centuries.

As far as this current proposed law goes, I would suggest voting for it
now, in order to ensure that we can successfully elect magistrates for
the coming year. After that, we will have enough time to reduce the
number of centuries (which requires a constitutional amendment) and
restore the ancient practice of requiring a simple majority of all
centuries.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
Quicquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gens reduction/ideas?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:32:54 +0100

Salve Cai Putei,

(snipped)

<< I do however disagree with the simple exemption of certain groups, since
we don't have any account of anybody's daily life (being a student, working
man/woman, etc.). We cannot control the income of our cives either, since we
are not positionned to dispose of the information taxadministrators of a
macronation have. I agree with the principle, in which I think the rich
should not be privilledged by letting them join NR and descouraging the poor
with taxes. I think the only solution exists therein that anybody wanting to
be exempted from the taxes, sends a message to the censores explaining why.
This information will of course be dealt with in a very sincere and discrete
way. >>

Indeed, having a check on this kind of system has always been the problem.
However, I think few people will say they are poor or student just to escape
an annual tax of ca. 10$. It's always easy to lie on the internet. For all
we know, I am in fact everyone of the gens Apollonia, but with different
email addresses and different subpersonalities. There will always be liars
and cheaters, but I trust that the majority of people acts in good faith.

But I agree that procedures should be set up, and should be handled with
extreme care.

Vale bene!
Draco


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
From:	"Marcus Ursus" <Floreus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 16:01:24 -0600

Ave,

I must respectfully disagree. Whenever I abstain from a vote... it means I
don't know or care enough either way. Even looking into the definition of
abstain it says the same thing: abstinre, to hold back.

To hold back a vote.. is not to have your vote counted. Put this way: if
there are seven items up for vote... and you are knowledgeable about six of
them.. vote for the six, then mark abstain on the seventh. You won't
care/know either way and you might as well mark something while you are
there--abstaining gives you a way to exercise your civic obligation of
voting on an item, when you couldn't care one way or the other.

How is anti-historic a bad thing? Last I looked I use a microwave, a
refrigerator, a jeep wrangler, maybe I should forsake these as well... but
alas is *Nova* Roma, so maybe I'll progress a bit.

On anti-democratic: How? Most people look at abstain as a simple 'doesn't
care' vote. I don't make a habit of voting for a bad law simply because a
good person proposed it... nor would I vote against a good law simply
because a 'bad' person proposed. That ceases to be democracy and becomes
sheer idoicy.

Salvete,
Marcus Floreus Ursus

>From: Michel Loos <loos@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule
>Date: 16 Nov 2001 10:44:59 -0200
>
> > VOTE AGENDA
> > 3. "A simple majority" is hereby defined as "one half of the number
> > of centuries casting votes, plus one". Abstentions are not considered
> > votes, and a century in which all voters abstained shall not be counted
> > toward this total.
>
>Salvete,
>
>Since this is the fianl draft, I must encourage all my fellow citizens
>to vote AGAINST this law which instaurs a minority government and
>destroys our democracy.
>It is both anti-historic and anti-democratic not recognizing the right
>for a citizen to vote against a law without voting against the person
>that proposes it.
>
>Vale,
>
>Manius Villius Limitanus.
>
>

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