http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
로마 공화정 후기 트리부스 선거민회의 투표 결과 공표에서 추첨의 역할
강성길 ( Sung Gil Kang ) 대구사학회 2004 대구사학 Vol.77 No.-
The aim of this paper is to interpret afresh chapters 56 and 57 in the Lex Malacitana, and to investigate the role of the lot in the announcement of the results of voting in Roman tribal elective assemblies in the Late Republic. The two bronze tablets which contain the surviving portions of the charters of the Spanish towns Malaca and Salpensa were discovered near Malaga in 1851. The Lex Malacitana is of great importance to the constitutional historian in that it contains virtually in their entirety the provisions laid down for the conduct of the local elections and in that they are generally based on voting procedure in Roman assemblies. According to Mommsen there was a preliminary announcement of the vote of individual curiae. In other words he supposed that the results of the voting in each curia were announced as they were reached, before the final announcement in an order determined by the lot. He confined the role of the lot to the announcement of the results of voting in the assembly as a whole. De Sanctis argued that the actual result of an election could well be affected by an order-that is an order determined by the lot- in which the results from the individual curiae were announced. Therefore, the preliminary announcement of the vote of individual curiae would not only have been unnecessary but could well have been both misleading and embarrassing. He maintained that there was a single announcement in the Malagan assembly. He also confined the role of the lot to the announcement of the results of voting in the assembly as a whole. From a reinterpretation of chapters 56, 57 of the Lex Malacitana we have attempted to draw some conclusions as follows. First, chapter 56 would be the principal of the renuntiatio that the presiding magistrate should observe in order to announce the results of individual voting units in an order decided by lot. Chapter 56 should have been applied not only in the Malagan elective assembly, but also at least in elective tribal assemblies --after the introduction of simultaneous voting-- in the late Roman Republic. Second, we assume that in Malagan elective assembly and Roman elective tribal assemblies each voter had to vote for one man. Third, if a candidate got an absolute majority of tribes in the announcement in an order decided by lot in Roman elective tribal assemblies, he should secure the votes of remaining tribes by Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Then the assemblies was dismissed without the announcement of remaining tribes. Fourth, We may assume that the lot would play an important role not only to the announcement of the results of voting in the assemblies as a whole, but also to the announcement of the results of voting in the individual tribes.
왜 로마 트리부스 선거민회에는 절대적 과반수의 원칙과 추첨이 적용되었는가?
강성길 ( Sung Gil Kang ) 한국서양고대역사문화학회 2007 서양고대사연구 Vol.21 No.-
This paper aims to investigate why an absolute majority rule and the lot were applied to Roman elective tribal assemblies. Mommsen and De Sanctis interpreted Chapters 56 and 57 in the Charter of Malaga(Lex Malacitana). According to their interpretations, two things is certain about electoral procedure in Roman elective tribal assemblies(comitia tributa). First, for valid election an absolute majority of voting groups (not merely a relative majority over other candidates) was necessary. Secondly, a feature which seems adequately supported by the evidences is that such a majority(1/2+1 of the voting groups) was not only necessary but was sufficient for election and that a man was declared elected (or certainly regarded as such) as soon as he had gained this majority of the groups as they voted, or of the votes of the groups as proclaimed. Obviously, if a bare majority was still sufficient for election, it was possible for more candidates to secure it than there was places. In fact, the case that too many candidates got their majority is possible. In other words, the magistracies might go to men who did not carry the largest number of tribes. Is it not likely that if so the Romans would have become dissatisfied with this procedure, and added to the absolute majority as a requirement for election a relative majority over other candidates? This argument becomes the more striking when we reflect that with this procedure it was possible to fail of election even though you gained more votes, in total, than a man who was elected. Why were an absolute majority rule and the lot apply to Roman elective tribal assemblies? My main points are as follows. First, I think that in Malagan elective assembly and Roman elective tribal assemblies each voter would vote for one man(candidate). Secondly, if a candidate got an absolute majority of tribes, he should legally secure the votes of remaining tribes. Then the assembly was dismissed without announcement of remaining tribes. Thirdly, Romans let Jupiter decide through the lot which winners of the majority of the tribes were to take office. Cicero, Pro Plancio, 22.53 would show that the results of individual voting units(tribes) would have been announced not before the lot, but after the lot. Lastly, the absolute majority rule and the lot in Roman elective tribal assemblies would have been instituted in order to minimize the disadvantages of candidates that could fail of election because of regulations to be taken in the case of equality of votes, even though they had carried the largest tribes before the regulations was applied to them.