> I was speaking of the absuridty of calling something
> that uses fuzzy wuzzy feelgoodisms like "fair"
> rather
> than objective terms a science.

> alternative voting is a more sensitive register of
> voter preference since it conveys more information
> about the underlying structure of the voter's
> preference set

> We are also a Micronation, but that term has no

> standing and calling ourselves a micronation does

> give us any of the powers of a soverign nation.

> If Someone decided to call himself by my nomen

> entering my Gens there is nothing that I or Nova

> could do to stop him. If for some strange reason I
> wanted to call myself Lucia Sicinia Nova Roma

> stop me. If someone wanted to leave a Gens and enter
> another no one could stop him even if there wasn't

> edict that said he could. If I wanted to declare my
> Gens a Patrician Gens, there is nothing Nova Roma
> could do to stop me from calling myself a Patrician.

> Salve Romans This is a campaign speech

> Marcus Junius Brutus??????
>
> Are we nuts.!!!!!!! This guy should be in jail!!!!! He and his
> friends committed MURDER , a very public MURDER

> How can the citizens of Nova Roma even contemplate putting a
> person with his lack of morals in public office.

> Worst of all his "Faction" , Party, what ever you call them
> have no PLAN.

> none, noda, zipo.

> They propose nothing and hope for the best.

> How can you govern with no PLAN

> Hell even the "Greeks" had a plan!!!!!!!!!!!!

> The has not been paid for by any P.F.C. or anybody else, just by me!

> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus writes:
>
> > Salve Romans This is a campaign speech
>
> (Thank you!)
>
> > Marcus Junius Brutus??????
> >
> > Are we nuts.!!!!!!! This guy should be in jail!!!!! He and his
> > friends committed MURDER , a very public MURDER
>
> They killed a tyrant. A man who had committed miestas by
> crossing the Rubico river with his ten legions when he was
> still supposed to be proconsul of Gaul. A man who had
> declared himself dictator for life. A man who was responsible
> for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Roman soldiers
> whose only crime was in remaining loyal to the Senate.
>
> Yes, Marcus Iunius Brutus killed Caius Iulius Caesar. He
> did so with pride, and with filial piety for his great
> ancestor who had once rid Rome of kings. For all that
> Caius Iulius Caesar refused a diadem, his every action
> in his last years marked him a king in all but title.
>
> Marcus Iunius Brutus acted for the good of Rome.
>
> > How can the citizens of Nova Roma even contemplate putting a
> > person with his lack of morals in public office.
>
> Lack of morals? To place his life in mortal peril before the
> assembled Senate, in order to do what had to be done? Is that
> an immoral act? Or do you mean that he slew the man who was
> his mother's longtime despoiler? Who openly flouted Roman
> morality by carrying on his liaison with a patrician matron
> of the first class? Is Brutus judged immoral for avenging
> his family honor?
>
> > Worst of all his "Faction" , Party, what ever you call them
> > have no PLAN.
>
> He believes that a return to normalcy will naturally lead
> to the restoration of the mos maiorum. The traditional
> constitution of Republican Rome will reassert itself, and
> all will be well again.
>
> > none, noda, zipo.
>
> Brutus believes that none is needed. The Roman people, once
> free of their oppressors, will resume living in the manner
> they have always lived.
>
> > They propose nothing and hope for the best.
>
> Yes. The gods will provide.
>
> > How can you govern with no PLAN
>
> The only plan needed to govern Rome is the twelve tablets
> and the mos maiorum. All else is sophistry and unroman
> nonsense.
>
> > Hell even the "Greeks" had a plan!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> We don't need no steenkin' greeks.
>
> > The has not been paid for by any P.F.C. or anybody else, just by

>
> (And it was really great! Feel up to another round?)
>
> --
> This paid political announcement has been brought to you by
> the Committee to Elect Marcus Iunius Brutus. Alouisis Ded,
> Treasurer.

> If not does anybody know what
> movie I'm talking about?

> Salvete Omnes,
>
>

>
> The sixth paragraph really explains just why it is a girl, or why

>
> "Viewed from above, Perks suggests Stonehenge's inner bluestone

>
> This may or may not have to do with Nova Roma, but I still think it

>
> Optime Valete,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus,
>
> Consular Candidate, 2014

>
> A few years ago, really at about the time I began my current

> things Roman, I saw the end of a movie about Marc Antony featuring

> Heston as Antony. Does anybody know if this is available on VHS or

> Was it based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?

> I am in the process of selecting a
> cognomen at this time. I recently communicated with
> QC Calvus regarding this issue and will bring an end
> to the confusion shortly that way no one has fingers
> wrongly pointed at them (.....)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus"
> <ahenobarbus@h...> wrote:
> >
> > A few years ago, really at about the time I began my current
> fixation on all
> > things Roman, I saw the end of a movie about Marc Antony
featuring
> Charlton
> > Heston as Antony. Does anybody know if this is available on VHS
or
> DVD?
> > Was it based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?
>
>
> Yes, it is based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and was made in
1970.
> Heston was Antony, Jason Robards was Brutus (not the best Brutus I
> must admit), Sir John Gielgud Caesar. I believe Roddy McDowell
played
> Octavian but can't recall offhand.
>
> It's out of stock on Amazon except one used copy.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
> /6300208575/qid=1057857968/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-2306502-0147204?
> v=glance&s=dvd
>
> Vale,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius

> Salve Deciusiuni

>
> There is the 1972 version made with Charlton Heston but it was

> not released to theatres in North America and has appeared on TV

> on rare occasiohttp:
>
> http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A2634
>
> >
> Antony And Cleopatra / Charlton Heston
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...>

> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus"
> > <ahenobarbus@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > A few years ago, really at about the time I began my current
> > fixation on all
> > > things Roman, I saw the end of a movie about Marc Antony
> featuring
> > Charlton
> > > Heston as Antony. Does anybody know if this is available on

> or
> > DVD?
> > > Was it based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?
> >
> >
> > Yes, it is based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and was made in
> 1970.
> > Heston was Antony, Jason Robards was Brutus (not the best Brutus

> > must admit), Sir John Gielgud Caesar. I believe Roddy McDowell
> played
> > Octavian but can't recall offhand.
> >
> > It's out of stock on Amazon except one used copy.
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
> > /6300208575/qid=1057857968/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-2306502-0147204?
> > v=glance&s=dvd
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Decius Iunius Palladius

>

> have been removed]

> Salve Deciusiuni
>
> There is the 1972 version made with Charlton Heston but it was

> not released to theatres in North America and has appeared on TV

> on rare occasiohttp:
>
>
>
>
>
> //www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A2634ns:
>
> Antony And Cleopatra / Charlton Heston
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...>

> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus"
> > <ahenobarbus@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > A few years ago, really at about the time I began my current
> > fixation on all
> > > things Roman, I saw the end of a movie about Marc Antony
> featuring
> > Charlton
> > > Heston as Antony. Does anybody know if this is available on

> or
> > DVD?
> > > Was it based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?
> >
> >
> > Yes, it is based on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and was made in
> 1970.
> > Heston was Antony, Jason Robards was Brutus (not the best Brutus

> > must admit), Sir John Gielgud Caesar. I believe Roddy McDowell
> played
> > Octavian but can't recall offhand.
> >
> > It's out of stock on Amazon except one used copy.
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
> > /6300208575/qid=1057857968/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-2306502-0147204?
> > v=glance&s=dvd
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Decius Iunius Palladius

>
> Salvete
>
> Vote for Lucius Iunius Brutus.
>
> --- Bill Gawne <gawne@...> wrote:
> > I don't suppose you'd like to give a rousing
> > campaign speech for
> > either of your illustrious spiritual ancestors,
> > would you?
>
> How was that ;-)

> Now for the debate.
>
> Don't vote for Lucius Iunius Brutus!

> I am in the process of selecting a
> cognomen at this time. I recently communicated with
> QC Calvus regarding this issue and will bring an end
> to the confusion shortly that way no one has fingers
> wrongly pointed at them (.....)

> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> "Oh but really. You should vote for Lucius Iunius Brutus.
> It's the right thing to do."
>
> No it's not.

> --- Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus wrote:
> > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > "Oh but really. You should vote for Lucius
> > Iunius Brutus. It's the right thing to do."
> >
> > No it's not.
>
> Is to.

> deciusiunius wrote:
> > --- Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus wrote:
> > > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > > "Oh but really. You should vote for Lucius
> > > Iunius Brutus. It's the right thing to do."
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > Is to.
>
> Salvete.
>
> People, people...mind the language! Remember, there are minors
> subscribed to this list. Just because an election is upcoming

> need to resort to this sort of ad hominem attacks. Please, keep this
> sort of flamewar offlist.

> Salve Romans
>
> It would seem the the "Committee to Elect Lucius Iunius Brutus" is

>
> So lets see a murder for public office and as his campaign

>
> "Corruptio optimi pessima"
>
> If he wins you will not be able to say you were not warned !!!!

>DO NOT VOTE FOR Lucius Iunius Brutus he should be on
>trial not in office

> deciusiunius wrote:
> > --- Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus wrote:
> > > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > > "Oh but really. You should vote for Lucius
> > > Iunius Brutus. It's the right thing to do."
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > Is to.
>
> Salvete.
>
> People, people...mind the language! Remember, there are minors
> subscribed to this list. Just because an election is upcoming there's no
> need to resort to this sort of ad hominem attacks. Please, keep this
> sort of flamewar offlist.
>
> Valete, Titus Octavius Pius.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Gallagher
To: Stephen Gallagher
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Vote NOT for L. Iunius Brutus


Salve

he is right!!! I did get them confused Don't vote for Marcus For that mater any Brutus it is a bad Idea

Vale

Tiberius ( who will now put on his glasses before he attempts to read the computer screen) Galerius
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Gallagher
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Vote NOT for L. Iunius Brutus


Salve Romans

It would seem the the "Committee to Elect Lucius Iunius Brutus" is up to old tricks. Did you all notice who his treasurer is??? None other than the one , the only Alouisis Ded, as most of you will remember this person was IMPEACHED as a quaestor for, oh misappropriation of public funds, hell I thought he was still in exile

So lets see a murder for public office and as his campaign treasurer a DISGRACED former public official

"Corruptio optimi pessima"

If he wins you will not be able to say you were not warned !!!!


And just to set the record straight G. Iulius Caesar of blessed memory ,

Turned down a "Kingly Crown" thrice I was there I saw and heard him. He clearly said

I am not REX, I AM CAESAR !!!!!!!

DO NOT VOTE FOR Lucius Iunius Brutus he should be on trial not in office


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
"Carpe Cerevisi"

The has not been paid for by any P.F.C. or anybody else, just by me!





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

> It would seem the the "Committee to Elect Lucius Iunius Brutus" is up to
> old tricks. Did you all notice who his treasurer is??? None other than
> the one , the only Alouisis Ded, as most of you will remember this person
> was IMPEACHED as a quaestor for, oh misappropriation of public funds, hell
> I thought he was still in exile

> So lets see a murder for public office and as his campaign treasurer a
> DISGRACED former public official

> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> "Carpe Cerevisi"

> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
> "Oh but really. You should vote for Lucius Iunius Brutus.
> It's the right thing to do."
>
> No it's not.

> Kristoffer From <from@...> writes:
> > People, people...mind the language! Remember,
> > there are minors subscribed to this list. Just
> > because an election is upcoming there's no
> > need to resort to this sort of ad hominem
> > attacks. Please, keep this sort of flamewar
> > offlist.
> You arrogant fascist! How *DARE* you attempt to
> interefere with FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! Who do you
> think you ARE?!?!?!? HITLER???

> Bill Gawne wrote:
> > Kristoffer From <from@...> writes:
> > > People, people...mind the language! Remember,
> > > there are minors subscribed to this list. Just
> > > because an election is upcoming there's no
> > > need to resort to this sort of ad hominem
> > > attacks. Please, keep this sort of flamewar
> > > offlist.
> > You arrogant fascist! How *DARE* you attempt to
> > interefere with FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! Who do you
> > think you ARE?!?!?!? HITLER???
>
> Salve, Marine.
>
> *whimpers and looks for a dark place to hide and cry*

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Gawne
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Vote NOT for L. Iunius Brutus


Tiberius Galerius Paulinus writes:

> It would seem the the "Committee to Elect Lucius Iunius Brutus" is up to
> old tricks. Did you all notice who his treasurer is??? None other than
> the one , the only Alouisis Ded, as most of you will remember this person
> was IMPEACHED as a quaestor for, oh misappropriation of public funds, hell
> I thought he was still in exile

Hey now! Al Ded is a fine upstanding businessman. How could
you possibly allege such a thing?

> So lets see a murder for public office and as his campaign treasurer a
> DISGRACED former public official

(Hey, Tiberius? I think you're confusing your Iunia Bruti. While
it's true that Al is working on both campaigns, you might want to
check which one you're calling a murderer. OK?)

> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> "Carpe Cerevisi"

Now *that* is an idea I can agree with. I'll open a fresh cask
over at the Taverna.

-- Marinus


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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





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

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Vote for L. Iunius Brutus


Kristoffer From <from@...> writes:

> Bill Gawne wrote:
> > Kristoffer From <from@...> writes:
> > > People, people...mind the language! Remember,
> > > there are minors subscribed to this list. Just
> > > because an election is upcoming there's no
> > > need to resort to this sort of ad hominem
> > > attacks. Please, keep this sort of flamewar
> > > offlist.
> > You arrogant fascist! How *DARE* you attempt to
> > interefere with FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! Who do you
> > think you ARE?!?!?!? HITLER???
>
> Salve, Marine.
>
> *whimpers and looks for a dark place to hide and cry*

I trust everybody understands this is all in fun.

-- M


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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





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

> Tiberius ( where the hell is that Taverna I know it's around here
> somewhere

> Now for the debate.

> Kristoffer From <from@d...> writes:
>
> > Bill Gawne wrote:
> > > Kristoffer From <from@d...> writes:
> > > > People, people...mind the language! Remember,
> > > > there are minors subscribed to this list. Just
> > > > because an election is upcoming there's no
> > > > need to resort to this sort of ad hominem
> > > > attacks. Please, keep this sort of flamewar
> > > > offlist.
> > > You arrogant fascist! How *DARE* you attempt to
> > > interefere with FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! Who do you
> > > think you ARE?!?!?!? HITLER???
> >
> > Salve, Marine.
> >
> > *whimpers and looks for a dark place to hide and cry*
>
> I trust everybody understands this is all in fun.

> Salvete,
>
> > Now for the debate.
>
> If I had posted a 500 word campaign speech on why we
> should vote for Lucius Iunius Brutus, it would
> probably have passed without comment. Instead, my
> simple yet effective 'Vote for L. Iunius Brutus'
> comment has generated a mass of publicity.
>
> Politicians out there take note :-)

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> <gawne@c...> wrote:
> > Kristoffer From <from@d...> writes:
> >
> > > Bill Gawne wrote:
> > > > Kristoffer From <from@d...> writes:
> > > > > People, people...mind the language! Remember,
> > > > > there are minors subscribed to this list. Just
> > > > > because an election is upcoming there's no
> > > > > need to resort to this sort of ad hominem
> > > > > attacks. Please, keep this sort of flamewar
> > > > > offlist.
> > > > You arrogant fascist! How *DARE* you attempt to
> > > > interefere with FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! Who do you
> > > > think you ARE?!?!?!? HITLER???
> > >
> > > Salve, Marine.
> > >
> > > *whimpers and looks for a dark place to hide and cry*
> >
> > I trust everybody understands this is all in fun.
>
> And how dare YOU suggest that anyone on this list would ever have fun
> here!! The nerve of some people....

> L. Iunius Brutus has my regard as someone willing to
> deal with the usurper,
> Iulius Caesar.

> I'm open to persuasion, but immune to Pythonesque suasion.

>
> Hell even the "Greeks" had a plan!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Dateline Seattle, America Boreoccidentalis.
> Exclusive to the Roman Inquirer.
>
> The Roman Inquirer has received reliable reports that the rumors
> involving Cornelia and Aurelia -- in which anonymous reports had
> them involved in a *shocking* LESBIAN LOVE AFFAIR -- have now been
> set to rights.
>
> Our reporter caught up with Cornelia at her Seattle hillside
> co-op apartment, dressed in flannel tunica, denim stola, and
> Doc Marten calligae. There, the famous dowager dismissed the
> reports as "... complete fabrications."
>
> "Aurelia and I spend a lot of time in each other's company,
> and I suppose there are going to be filthy minded men who
> let their fantasies run wild. But really, we're just a couple
> of ageing Roman matronas who share a lot in common." Cornelia
> said.

> Dateline Seattle, America Boreoccidentalis.
> Exclusive to the Roman Inquirer.
>
> The Roman Inquirer has received reliable reports that the rumors
> involving Cornelia and Aurelia -- in which anonymous reports had
> them involved in a *shocking* LESBIAN LOVE AFFAIR -- have now been
> set to rights.
>
> Our reporter caught up with Cornelia at her Seattle hillside
> co-op apartment, dressed in flannel tunica, denim stola, and
> Doc Marten calligae. There, the famous dowager dismissed the
> reports as "... complete fabrications."
>
> "Aurelia and I spend a lot of time in each other's company,
> and I suppose there are going to be filthy minded men who
> let their fantasies run wild. But really, we're just a couple
> of ageing Roman matronas who share a lot in common." Cornelia
> said.

> If I had posted a 500 word campaign speech on why we
> should vote for Lucius Iunius Brutus, it would
> probably have passed without comment. Instead, my
> simple yet effective 'Vote for L. Iunius Brutus'
> comment has generated a mass of publicity.
>
> Politicians out there take note :-)

> > L. Iunius Brutus has my regard as someone willing to
> > deal with the usurper,
> > Iulius Caesar.
>
> That was Marcus. Lucius was responsible for the
> deposition of the last of the kings and the foundation
> of the Roman republic. He was one of our first
> consuls, around 509BC.

> I have just read in the paper of this superb find in Sicily,
> especially with the tantalizing rider that they somehow are at odds
> with Homer's Iliad.
> Is this nonsense from the edges of the Empire or a discovery of
> real importance,

>Then you are opting for a period when Roma is the
>Capital of no more than the Italian Republic, where
>there is a large group of citizens who want to raze
>the Flavian Ampitheatre to improve traffic. A Roma
>where the Xtian church is supreme

> Ave Lucius Sinicius Drusus
>
> I only want to respectfully answer to the following sentences:
>
> >Then you are opting for a period when Roma is the
> >Capital of no more than the Italian Republic, where
> >there is a large group of citizens who want to raze
> >the Flavian Ampitheatre to improve traffic. A Roma
> >where the Xtian church is supreme
>
> The actual period is obviously not the better that Rome had never

> Read this message in the right way, I'm not irritated, I only want

>
> Vale bene my fellow-citizen
> Caius Ianus Mediolanensis
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Do you think it is mere chance that not one but TWO of
> Caesar's relatives are contesting this election? His
> Uncle Giaus Marius, a man well past his prime, and his
> mother? I assure you that this is no mere chance
> event. Caesar's relatives did not don the chalked toga
> to serve your needs. No they seek office to serve
> Caesar, to prepare the way for him to achive the
> office that he lusts after, King of the Romans.

> This political announcement has been sponsored by
> the
> Committee to Rerererererereelect Gaius Marius.

> Could anybody explain the above clause for me
> and I thank you.

> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, the
> results are
> calculated as follows.
> a. In the first round, the number 1 preferences of
> the centuries are
> compared.

> If at this stage any candidate is the
> number 1 preference
> of more than fifty per cent of the centuries (not
> including any
> 'void' centuries - centuries in which no 'yes' votes
> were cast), that
> candidate is elected.

> If no candidate has a majority
> of
> first-preference votes, then the candidate who is
> the number 1 choice
> of fewest centuries (ties being decided by lot) is
> eliminated.

> The
> election or elimination of a candidate ends the
> first round.

> b. If there are still vacancies to be filled, there
> is a second round
> in which each century which voted for the elected or
> eliminated
> candidate as its first choice is given to its second
> choice
> candidate.

> If any such century has no second choice,
> that century
> becomes 'void'.

> As before, if any candidate now has
> a majority of the
> centuries (not including any 'void' centuries), he
> or she is elected.

> If not, the candidate with the fewest centuries is
> eliminated. This
> concludes the second round.

> Could anybody explain the above clause for me
> and I thank you.

> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, the
> results are
> calculated as follows.
> a. In the first round, the number 1 preferences of
> the centuries are
> compared.

> If at this stage any candidate is the
> number 1 preference
> of more than fifty per cent of the centuries (not
> including any
> 'void' centuries - centuries in which no 'yes' votes
> were cast), that
> candidate is elected.

> If no candidate has a majority
> of
> first-preference votes, then the candidate who is
> the number 1 choice
> of fewest centuries (ties being decided by lot) is
> eliminated.

> The
> election or elimination of a candidate ends the
> first round.

> b. If there are still vacancies to be filled, there
> is a second round
> in which each century which voted for the elected or
> eliminated
> candidate as its first choice is given to its second
> choice
> candidate.

> If any such century has no second choice,
> that century
> becomes 'void'.

> As before, if any candidate now has
> a majority of the
> centuries (not including any 'void' centuries), he
> or she is elected.

> If not, the candidate with the fewest centuries is
> eliminated. This
> concludes the second round.

> , I only want to pinpoint. It's true that the FlaviaAmphiteathre is always
> in the heart of traffic...but I never talked with anyone who wanted to "raze"
> it (there isn't neither a large group nor a small one in all overy
> Italy,especially in Rome).

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/11/03 5:55:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> conte.roby@v... writes:
>
>
> > , I only want to pinpoint. It's true that the FlaviaAmphiteathre
is always
> > in the heart of traffic...but I never talked with anyone who
wanted to "raze"
> > it (there isn't neither a large group nor a small one in all
overy
> > Italy,especially in Rome).
>
> Actually there were some modernists who did want to raze the
Flavian several
> years ago and got it as far as a vote. Their reason? Slows down
traffic.
>
> It was defeated.
>
> Q Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> C. Results shall be counted by century.
>

> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, the results are
> calculated as follows.
> a. In the first round, the number 1 preferences of the centuries are
> compared. If at this stage any candidate is the number 1 preference
> of more than fifty per cent of the centuries (not including any
> 'void' centuries - centuries in which no 'yes' votes were cast), that
> candidate is elected.

> candidate who is the number 1 choice of fewest centuries (ties being decided by lot)
> is eliminated. The election or elimination of a candidate ends the first
> round.
>

> in which each century which voted for the elected or eliminated
> candidate as its first choice is given to its second choice
> candidate. If any such century has no second choice, that century
> becomes 'void'. As before, if any candidate now has a majority of the
> centuries (not including any 'void' centuries), he or she is elected.
> If not, the candidate with the fewest centuries is eliminated. This
> concludes the second round.
>

> So it goes like this: I am placed in an electoral college (century).

> If there are 100 of us

> in that college and 70 voted for candidate A, 20 for
> candidate B, and 10 for candidate C, but that if candidate A came last in
> the count of electoral colleges (centuries), and therefore candidate A is
> elliminated, then my electoral college vote will go to candidate B
> eventhough 70% of us did not vote for him. Is that correct?

----- Original Message -----
From: qfabiusmaxmi@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Fabia


In a message dated 7/11/03 8:19:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gaiusgalerius@... writes:
Could anybody explain the clause for me and I thank you.

Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
I'll try.

> C. Results shall be counted by century.
>

QFM Self explanatory

> 1. In the case of a magisterial election, the results are
> calculated as follows.
> a. In the first round, the number 1 preferences of the centuries are
> compared. If at this stage any candidate is the number 1 preference
> of more than fifty per cent of the centuries (not including any
> 'void' centuries - centuries in which no 'yes' votes were cast), that
> candidate is elected.

QFM Let's say you have three candidates for an office that has two slots.
If you have 118 centuries voting and one candidate receives 71 (51%)
centuries voting Uti Rogas for him. As the greatest vote getter per centuries he is
elected.


If no candidate has a majority of > first-preference votes, then the
> candidate who is the number 1 choice of fewest centuries (ties being decided by lot)
> is eliminated. The election or elimination of a candidate ends the first
> round.
>
QFM: If no candidate wins 71 centuries, the candidate receiving the fewest
votes per century is eliminated. Which means the first two candidates would be
elected

b. If there are still vacancies to be filled, there is a second round
> in which each century which voted for the elected or eliminated
> candidate as its first choice is given to its second choice
> candidate. If any such century has no second choice, that century
> becomes 'void'. As before, if any candidate now has a majority of the
> centuries (not including any 'void' centuries), he or she is elected.
> If not, the candidate with the fewest centuries is eliminated. This
> concludes the second round.
>

QFM This would be useful in election of Quaestors. Since there are so many
applicants for the position.
Suffice to say in the second round those centuries who did not vote for the
winning candidate, would not have to vote again with the winning candidate
and/or the losing candidate eliminated from the ballot. The vote would go to the
next candidate that the centuries had voted for originally.

I.E. you only vote once as citizen. But you have three choices. You pick
candidate A and candidate C and ignore B. When the vote is tallied your century
had A winning by clear majority. If A does not carry the election by taking
51% of the voting centuries, then the candidate receiving the lowest number of
centuries is eliminated. In these case it was C.
So A + B win by default, even though you voted for C and not B.

Least that is the way I read it. If that was not the what designer intended,
then it will have to be rewritten. I'm simulation designer as my hobby, and
I write complex rules for simulations.

Valete



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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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





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

> So it goes like this: I am placed in an electoral college (century).

> If there are 100 of us

> in that college and 70 voted for candidate A, 20 for
> candidate B, and 10 for candidate C, but that if candidate A came last in
> the count of electoral colleges (centuries), and therefore candidate A is
> elliminated, then my electoral college vote will go to candidate B
> eventhough 70% of us did not vote for him. Is that correct?

> Salve Marine:

> It is true that our centuries (electoral colleges) are small, but we
> will surely grow, and one day the century could not only be a hundred but a
> thousand.

> And still it is not unreasonable to assume that one candidate
> would carry 70% of the vote and another 30% of the vote even with small
> centuries.

> AS to the voting, if there are 3 candidates for one position, and all 3
> are my friends, does that mean I could vote for all 3 candidates?

> And I am assuming that we vote only once, as Maximus pointed out,

> and "second round"
> referred to in the law means second round of counting the votes and not
> second round of voting.

> It is true that our centuries (electoral colleges) are small, but we
> will surely grow, and one day the century could not only be a hundred but a
> thousand. And still it is not unreasonable to assume that one candidate
> would carry 70% of the vote and another 30% of the vote even with small
> centuries.

> AS to the voting, if there are 3 candidates for one position, and all 3
> are my friends, does that mean I could vote for all 3 candidates?

> And I am
> assuming that we vote only once, as Maximus pointed out, and "second round"
> referred to in the law means second round of counting the votes and not
> second round of voting.

> No. You vote once per open position, not once per candidate.

> > AS to the voting, if there are 3 candidates for one position, and all 3
> > are my friends, does that mean I could vote for all 3 candidates?
>
> No. You vote once per open position, not once per candidate.

> Salve Romans
>
>
> This was said in part by a number of writers " A Roma where

>
>
> I have taken no less than two oaths to show respect for he Religio

>
> For those who do not know , X'tian ( with the apostrophe) was the

>
> The Name of the Church everyone keeps talking about that is still

>
> the Roman Catholic Church.
>
> It does not require a constitutional amendment for good manners and

>
>
> Or does it?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Roman Citizen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I don't like this law, not a bit. But chief among my objections is
> that this proposed law is not representative and democratic.

> You may have heard
> of the saying taxation without representation. That may be ok with a
> plebeian in Roma Antiqua, but not with this plebeian in Nova Roma.

> Thank you gentlemen for answering my questions. The Honourable Marinus,
> the Honourable Labienus, the Honourable Maximus, and the Honourable Cordus.

> I don't like this law, not a bit. But chief among my objections is that
> this proposed law is not representative and democratic.