Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Averyphotog t1_jbmcsr7 wrote

“This will set us back decades,” said Democratic Sen Charlane Oliver, a Black lawmaker from Nashville. “This will disproportionately impact the Black representation, the minority representation and dilute — not just dilute — it will steal and silence our voices.”

Which is entirely the point, of course.

334

Drewy99 t1_jbo2fjg wrote

Republicans only know how to operate on bad faith.

There is not a productive bone in their bodies.

50

Prodigy195 t1_jbqusku wrote

When they realized that demographic changes in the us were going to make difficult for them to win democratically they just decided to throw away democracy.

6

stevenmacarthur t1_jbmcpgp wrote

"'Conventional wisdom for the past four decades has been that smaller group sizes tend to make better decisions...' said Republican Sen. Adam Lowe of Calhoun."

Then why don't they vote to halve the size of every city council in the entire state?

So much for the party of Local Control...

241

AlexKingstonsGigolo t1_jbmp8k6 wrote

Mathematics, however, shows the optimal legislature size is approximately the cube root of the population.

37

[deleted] t1_jboeqwo wrote

[removed]

2

InsuranceToTheRescue t1_jbon7gl wrote

I don't know what his source is, but if this were implemented then the US House would be something like 678 or 679.

5

jschubart t1_jbp5zt9 wrote

The House should be much bigger.

5

InsuranceToTheRescue t1_jbpf548 wrote

We should just institute the Wyoming Rule and be done with it. Reapportion House seats and increase their number so that each district has, as close as possible, the same number of reps per capita as the smallest constituent state.

So, for example, Wyoming's at large district has 578,803 people, making it the least populated state. The last census, under this rule, would have increased the number of House reps and reapportioned them all to each state so that, as best as possible, each rep is representing about 578,803 people.

8

girhen t1_jbpk46p wrote

We've seriously hampered the balance of Congress by hard capping the number of Representatives like we have. Some small states getting the benefit of both houses of Congress when only the Senate was meant for the smaller states to benefit.

2

theknyte t1_jbr1occ wrote

We live in a instant communication digital age. Congress and the House shouldn't even need to vote on anything anymore. They should be there to represent their districts, and write bills that their constituents want. Then, like once a month, there's a national vote on all propose bills.

The end.

0

girhen t1_jbtsbet wrote

The also have committees where they do research, debate bills on the floor for all to discuss, and interview people. No, they do need to be there fairly frequently for in-person activities.

2

Zerole00 t1_jbosf6v wrote

>So much for the party of Local Control...

Are any non-Republicans actually dumb enough to believe they argue this kinda thing in good faith?

3

DontTazeMehBr0 t1_jbmzrnu wrote

Republicans: We want people to have freedom from big government and be able to exercise their rights

The people: reject trying to host the RNC, try to limit short term rentals (airbnb) profiteering in a housing crisis, try to decriminalize minor marijuana possession, manage their own stadiums and airports, have diverse and representative local governments

Republicans: No, not like that

238

waffebunny t1_jbve4uv wrote

I’m most likely preaching to the choir here, but:

Republicans have only one goal: to tilt the balance of power in favor of themselves (and potentially their base); either by granting themselves more influence, or by stripping it from others.

This is why they claim to value tradition, moderation, small government, fiscal responsibility, and family values: because their actual agenda is wholly unappealing to anyone outside their group.

As we can see in the example above however, Republicans will quickly betray their own purported values when doing so will forward their efforts to seize power.

1

rntaboy t1_jbnblzl wrote

'“Conventional wisdom for the past four decades has been that smaller group sizes tend to make better decisions and this is the largest council that we see,” said Republican Sen. Adam Lowe of Calhoun. ”... There’s a reason why we’re judged by 12 of our peers in a jury and there’s a reason, I think, why Christ walked with 12 of his disciples.”

First, lol.

Second, Dude is one of 33 state senators.

128

wswordsmen t1_jbobiwb wrote

And we know why Christ had 12 disciples, the twelve tribes of Judea.

13

Real_Durindana t1_jbmvhyi wrote

> there’s a reason, I think, why Christ walked with 12 of his disciples

… because He didn’t want them fuckin bickering? That’s new

52

malphonso t1_jbo6ymq wrote

Christ, well known for engaging with the democratic process and seeking group consensus before flipping tables and beating moneychangers.

15

[deleted] t1_jboexys wrote

[removed]

2

EmotionalSuportPenis t1_jbqdglf wrote

I'd imagine the scene was a whole lot more chaotic and active in reality than the account lets on. Just think of every modern video where some disgruntled person walks in somewhere and starts breaking shit.

If time travel was a thing, that's one of the events I'd want to watch, and I'm not even Christian. I'd be there to watch the completely dumbfounded priest awkwardly trying to figure out what to do in the background, the temple guard getting run over by the stampede of people, the disciple throwing whatever was to hand, and the enterprising gentleman stealing everything he could get his hands on in the chaos and then running for the door. You know they were all there.

1

kandoras t1_jbo2dbb wrote

>Republican Sen. Adam Lowe of Calhoun. ”... There’s a reason why we’re judged by 12 of our peers in a jury and there’s a reason, I think, why Christ walked with 12 of his disciples.”

The Tennessee state senate has 33 members.

I doubt we'll see this guy volunteering to quit his job so that state government is mor Christ-like.

48

biggsteve81 t1_jbmm0gf wrote

TBH it is weird that the Tennessee State Senate has fewer members (33) than the Nashville Metro Council (40).

18

AlexKingstonsGigolo t1_jbmp3gt wrote

Question: when cutting a council in half, is it better to do it longways or cross ways? If you leave them with a torso, you only get charged with maiming. Slicing them in two along the spine is liable to have you charged with murder.

12

tor93 t1_jbn71fc wrote

This happened to us up in Toronto a few years ago!!!

12

littleuniversalist t1_jboe3lz wrote

Premiere of Ontario (where I live) did this to Toronto. Lead to some serious problems, but I’m sure that’s the point

7

DarthBrooks69420 t1_jboploz wrote

Sabotaging urban area governments and screaming about urban areas having ineffective governments, name a more iconic Conservative duo.

6

buscoamigos t1_jbou183 wrote

THIS is why I would never move to a blue city in a red state.

4

coskibum002 t1_jbokm2m wrote

The hypocrisy is deafening...

3

Bitter_Director1231 t1_jbp3pwm wrote

And the Lt. Governor of TN that puts out anti LGBTQ laws, is too busy cruising social media looking for gay men.

2

owlbrain t1_jbpm24w wrote

Not getting into the politics of the situation, but they did legitimately have a crazy large city council. 40 people?! Memphis, which is just barely smaller than Nashville, has only 13. For an out of state example, Chicago has almost 4x as many people as Nashville and has a 50 person City Council.

2

comments_suck t1_jbpv7ov wrote

Nashville is a Metro government, though. Meaning that the city and the county it is in are combined. I've never lived there, but if they think 40 seats are good, who am I to argue with them?

4

owlbrain t1_jbq25ti wrote

Nashville is effectively the entire county by population. 690,000 of the 716,000 in the county live in Nashville city limits.

3

Angeleno88 t1_jbuxlni wrote

I get the frustration over the state government getting involved as it appears to just be a retaliatory move and not out of concern for the taxpayers. However let’s be honest with ourselves that 40 is a ridiculously excessive number for a council like that. I live in Los Angeles and we have 15. Don’t tell me that Nashville justifiably needs 40 people on a council. Having that many people reeks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Even 20 is reasonably too high once factoring their population.

1

pk10534 t1_jbplyhs wrote

I mean, the religious comment was stupid, but this puts Nashville more in line with other large cities and makes sense. Chicago’s ridiculous number of aldermen has absolutely hindered its performance, and there’s no reason Nashville needs 3x the councilmen of cities like Boston and DC with even fewer people under its jurisdiction. And plenty of cities with minority-majority populations that are located in blue states also have vastly smaller city councils than Nashville’s (which has 40 members), so I just don’t buy that this is some racist, undemocratic power grab

−1

veringer t1_jbprciv wrote

One would presume it became that way because the citizens of that city wanted it like that, so yeah it probably is an undemocratic...something

1

pk10534 t1_jbps6jz wrote

If the citizens of a town in California wanted to refuse to recognize gay marriage, it’s “undemocratic” for the state to circumvent that? I mean sure, by some definition it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s illegal or wrong for legislation to pass if residents of a city disagree with it

−2

veringer t1_jbpvb3s wrote

Not sure if it's accurate or fair to compare a city council's size with (checks notes), a civil liberty that's been adjudicated by the SCOTUS.

3