Why does the NY state senate gerrymander split Buffalo?

[lfromnj]

The Ds have a viable path to the supermajority partly due to this split of Buffalo for no reason. Just by taking Buffalo the city itself which is only like 3/4 of a state senate district the rest of Erie county leans R. Instead for some reason the GOP wanted to split it and leave half of it in NY SD 60 which makes it a swing district now.  If they just kept Buffalo whole for the sink. you can easily draw 3 Safe R districts. And no the main Buffalo district is not winnable for the GOP ever. It was like Obama +50.

Just seems weird that such an efficient and incredible gerrymander left this weakspot.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

[Sol]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Is there some kind of requirement that NY State Senators have to live in their districts?

[Tintrlvr]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Is there some kind of requirement that NY State Senators have to live in their districts?

No, but it helps a lot in a primary.

[Mr.Phips]

Along with making the 2nd Buffalo seat bluer, Dems need to get rid of that hideous five way crack of Rochester.  Rochester should be split between two districts at most.

[Sol]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Is there some kind of requirement that NY State Senators have to live in their districts?

No, but it helps a lot in a primary.

Ah gotcha. I know here in NC that's a requirement, so sometimes gerrymanders are devised around that.

[lfromnj]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Is there some kind of requirement that NY State Senators have to live in their districts?

No, but it helps a lot in a primary.

Ah gotcha. I know here in NC that's a requirement, so sometimes gerrymanders are devised around that.

TBF in NC they also have county splitting rules anyway so most of the legislative districts still at least form a base community even if gerrymandered.

[DC Al Fine]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Good point.

It's important for us to remember that partisan gerrymandering isn't strictly about partisan gain. Incumbent protection/primary defence also plays a role and can conflict with maximizing one's seat count.

[lfromnj]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Good point.

It's important for us to remember that partisan gerrymandering isn't strictly about partisan gain. Incumbent protection/primary defence also plays a role and can conflict with maximizing one's seat count.

Yeah I figured there was some parochial concern so I was just curious why they did it this way. NY and AZ are the only 2 states I can tell where they abused population deviation to such a great extent to get extra seats for one party or both parties in the case of NY albeit in opposing chambers.

[Sol]

Republicans held the predecessor seat, because Democrats lost a usually safe seat in 2010 due to a corruption scandal. The gerrymander attempted to shore up the incumbent, whilst still leaving him enough of his base to win a primary.

Good point.

It's important for us to remember that partisan gerrymandering isn't strictly about partisan gain. Incumbent protection/primary defence also plays a role and can conflict with maximizing one's seat count.

At the risk of being a giant jerk, this goes to the heart of a disagreement I've had with certain other posters on here--parties don't just draw maps to maximize their power, but also to make things easier for incumbents and satisfy parochial concerns.