Talk:New York State Senate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Senate districts[edit]

How are Senate districts drawn? (I mean, what criteria "should" be used to draw districts, and not in the "Joe Bruno, Sheldon Silver, and George Pataki go into a room..." sense.) -HiFiGuy 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dean Skelos, Sheldon Silver, and Andrew Cuomo go into a room..." Sorry, it is basically a political process. The Senate was gerrymandered to favor the Republicans after WWII and the Assembly to favor the Democrats. Demographics have shifted, putting the Senate increasingly in play. Each time the districts are drawn (between the census in years ending in zero and the following election in years ending in 2), they are drawn based on recommendations of committees with input from the politicians whose seats are affected and then voted on in the legislature. The district lines tend to be drawn to favor politicians who are seeking to win reelection and to maintain the status quo of the party balance in districts where nobody has enough clout to rig it in their favor.71.249.224.254 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Casting vote" a familiar term to Americans?[edit]

I wonder whether "casting vote" is a term familiar to most Americans, a relevant question here since the article is about a U.S. jurisdiction. My instinct -- correct me if I am wrong -- is that most Americans have not heard the term "casting vote" and would instead use the term "tiebreaking vote." 24.29.134.41 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seats[edit]

"However, it also provides that if any county would by virtue of its population be entitled to more than three Senators, then the first three Senators would count towards the limit of fifty, while the remainder would be in addition to the fifty." Comment: Maybe I'm really dense, but I don't understand this wording at all, it seems very confusing. If there is a "limit" of fifty, why are there 62 senators?


Only three senators in a county count toward the fifty-senator limit. As I remember it, Kings County (Brooklyn) and a few other counties have more than three senators; however, only three of the senators from Brooklyn are counted towards the fifty. 208.65.57.69 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed pretty much that whole section (also on the New York Legislature page), until we come up with some clear wording and interpretation. The removed text is below. - Matthew238 (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The state Constitution provides that the state Senate have 50 members, each elected from senatorial districts roughly equal in population. However, it also provides that if, at the time of apportionment, any county having three or more senators would by virtue of its population be entitled to more than three Senators, "such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent." Currently, there are twelve additional Senators (who are, in terms of legislative power, equal to any other Senators), making the total membership 62.

Senate would remain Republican in event of tie[edit]

I've put a [citation needed] following this assertion in the article. It's not necessarily clear that this would be the case because Skelos is only acting as lieutenant governor by virtue of his being the Temporary President of the Senate. Would his holding of this office extend to the new Senate on January such that if he gets 30 votes for and 30 against he could cast a second vote for himself? --BOARshevik (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate is GOP controlled now[edit]

My edit got reversed, apparently some sysops don't bother fact checking before they revert.

Anyway, if you wouldn't mind reverting back the State Senate has switched parties since two Democrats switched parties. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.183.159 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't actually switch parties. It's a coalition situation. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Terms[edit]

The senate has not officially switched parties, I changed uses of the terms Majority and Minority to Democratic and Republican because of the fact that no one is officially anything.--[[User:Duffy2032|Duffy2032]f] (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed references to a "coalition" majority. I know that the New York Daily News has referred to the new majority as such, but I feel that it is rather dubious to call it a coalition when only two Democrats have decided to caucus with all 30 Republicans. Bridger (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll won't challenge the previous edit that claims that the current majority is a "coalition by definition," but Hiram Monserrate is making the same point I made. "You can't have a coalition government with two Democrats and 30 Republicans. It's just not reality." [2] I still disagree with the term "coalition" in this instance, but since the whole situation is fluid and tenuous, I will let it go for now. Bridger (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 New York State Senate Leadership Crisis[edit]

Someone has created it's own article (2009 New York State Senate Leadership Crisis), please make additions there, and keep the section on the main page concise. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senate chamber picture[edit]

I was curious: does anyone have a picture of the Senate chamber for the article? The page for the Assembly has a picture of the chamber. --Blue387 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the dedication of the people on this board makes you wonder why these people aren't on the Senate instead. am I right? I mean seriously. Lets all be honest here. The senate is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.121.74 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Shouldn't this article be moved back to New York State Senate? Even the Senate's official website says that is the correct name. TJ Spyke 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the correct name. The article should not have been moved. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party[edit]

It is true Jeffrey Klein, David Valesky, David Carlucci, Diane Savino do not caucus with the rest of the democrats, they are all registered with the Democrat Party. I feel they should be indicated as "Democrats" and not "Independent Democrats" since Democrat is an actual political party. There should be a section in the article explaining their separate caucus. Along with the section, an asterisk or something similar should be attached to each of member on the list of members.Racingstripes (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I brought this up two months ago and no one responded so I changed it.Racingstripes (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "Party" indicator would be more appropriately changed to "Caucus" to better indicate the separation of the IDC from the main Democratic caucus. They should be indicated, whereas the current setup does not allow for the indication of the four members of the IDC. (The closest analog I can think of is the case of Joseph Lieberman in the U.S. Senate. Although Lieberman remained a registered Democrat, and caucused with Democrats, he was listed throughout his final term in office as "Independent Democrat" and was thus indicated separately from the rest of the party. The difference is that the IDC isn't caucusing with the Democrats, but ran on their line in the election, while Lieberman did caucus with the Dems but didn't run on their line. Not that it matters much, in fact, I'd argue that the distinction would favor keeping the IDC separately indicated even more.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although what they DO is caucus and that is the term used federally, in New York State, they call it a "conference", not a "caucus". IDC stands for Independent Democrat Conference.71.249.224.254 (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senate members table[edit]

I have noticed that the last column in many cases is incorrect. Nieghborhoods, cities and towns are listed instead of counties. I corrected the listing for the 60th. Perhaps an addditional column listing the towns, and cities included in the district would be useful.1archie99 1archie99 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names of neighborhoods are often controversial. Names of counties are concrete and easy to keep correct for all 63 (after redistricting) Senate Districts and that's what it actually says at the top of that column anyway. I made the correction for the new 2012 election results table, which presumably will be the bases for the main Senate table once the new Senate takes office in January. I did not make the change for the current Senate because I didn't compile the data for the pre-redistricting districts. 71.249.224.254 (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating diagram[edit]

I would like to update the diagram for the senate. Could someone please confirm that the composition is correct? What is the difference between the independent democrats and the 1 democrat caucassing with the governing republicans? Does anyone have a source for this composition? Shabidoo | Talk 09:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source is Just a Google Search?[edit]

This whole controversial paragraph about the politicization of redistricting has one source, a google search for the word "new york state constitution":

"The Senate's apportionment traditionally favored Upstate due to the state constitution's original method of giving each county, even sparsely populated ones, at least one senator (a practice that mirrored the United States Senate's approach to give each state the same number of senators).[28] This changed with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a "one man, one vote" system of state legislative apportionment is constitutionally required. Since then, in redistricting, the Senate has traditionally overrepresented upstate in exchange for the Assembly overrepresenting downstate (each legislative district is allowed up to 5% deviation from the average district population; the state legislature systemically uses this leeway to create less populous Senate districts upstate and more populous ones downstate, and vice versa in the Assembly)." 184.75.115.98 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New York State Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the district map needs to be updated to reflect the 2018 election. I opened it but didn't see where the data is drawn from and don't know how to do it. jreiss17 21:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Flanagan away as leader[edit]

According to "The New York Times," Flanagan has stepped away from the Senate while he seeks treatment for a relapse of alcoholism; Joseph Griffo should be moved to Acting Minority Leader until a further announcement. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/nyregion/john-flanagan-rehab-senate-albany.html 98.10.165.90 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan composition table[edit]

I just updated this table but I have not gotten the formatting quite right. Any help would be welcome. SunCrow (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan composition table[edit]

I just realized that the partisan composition table was missing a lot of information it used to have. I pulled an old partisan composition table and added it. There are now two tables: One for 2018 and the several preceding years, and one beginning in 2019. I am not able to get the 2019 info added into the table for 2018 and the several preceding years. Could someone please give me a hand? SunCrow (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else responded, so I figured it out on my own. SunCrow (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this! I added the "latest voting share" line at the end, consolidated a few rows where the numbers were the same, and changed the majority-shading color for Dems to reflect the usual convention. Do you think Felder should get a different majority-shading color? Also, what do you think about only showing the beginning and ending composition for the 2017 session? That is all the Assembly table shows, as well as most other states. Starrfruit (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those additions, Starrfruit. In answer to your questions: Yes, I think Felder should get his own majority-shading color (that would make things consistent, as the IDC got its own color). As to the mid-session changes, I think they should stay. The table as it is shows in detail how the GOP hung on to power by its fingernails for years, only to be routed by the Dems in 2018. I think the details are helpful and relevant. SunCrow (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree some history should be displayed, it's just a question of whether begin/end of sessions is sufficient or whether 2017-19 was the key session to show the history. I've changed the Felder shading to "lightblue," which had been the header color for him in the composition table. I've made his header color a bit darker to follow the convention. If that works, I may change the color in the parliament diagram in the infobox to match it. Starrfruit (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. SunCrow (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow: Once the session is over, the table should be streamlined to just show the beginning and end of the legislature. We should keep it current during the session, but change to the streamlined one after the session of the legislature is over. The table is just to summarize historic partisan composition, not have a comprehensive play-by-play, that's what the history section is for (which you've done a great job of maintaining). Nevermore27 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Nevermore27.
Nevermore27, two other quick points. First, NY's legislative sessions technically run for two years, which is why I changed the table to reflect that. Would it be OK with you if the table showed the sessions as being of two years' duration? Second, I would argue that the enrollment data changed during the 2011-12 session (you edited the data I had entered) because Republican George Amedore was initially seated, but was unseated shortly thereafter when the final election results showed that he had been defeated by Democrat Cecilia Tkaczyk (see https://web.archive.org/web/20130127004856/http://www.news10.com/story/20659330/tkaczyk-to-be-sworn-in-after-prolonged-campaign). Any objection to me reinstating that data? SunCrow (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SunCrow: The way I've been doing it in other states is if the partisan composition was identical at the beginning and at the end, only one line is necessary. With Amedore not being seated at the beginning in 2011, that would be a difference, so yeah, go for it. For session dates, is the entire two-year period counted as one continuous session or is it broken up by year, like in most states? If it's the former then yes go back to your version and I apologize, the only reason I broke it up like that is because that's what I do on other states' pages. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermore27, I just realized that I messed up. The Amedore/Tkaczyk switch happened in 2013, not 2011. Thus, you were right about party enrollment remaining the same at the beginning of 2011 and the end of 2012. I have switched it back. My mistake. SunCrow (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow:[edit]

Dude. I get your passion for this page and (presumably) the underlying subject. But you're putting it so much work and the page just ends up looking worse for it. Less is more. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermore27, I hear your concern about the appearance of the infobox if there are too many sources. However, contrary to what you said, some of the sources I added are not present in the body of the article. I think they should be included, so I added a collapsible section on additional sources. I really don't know what I'm doing formatting-wise, so if you have any input on that front, I'd appreciate it. SunCrow (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_State_Senate&oldid=1207186865"