Which party has gerrymandered more in the past 25 years Democrats or Republicans ?
Over the past 25 years, Republicans have gerrymandered more extensively and more effectively than Democrats, particularly in key battleground states. However, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering, and the practice is bipartisan in nature.
🗺️ Key Findings from Redistricting Experts
According to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project and other nonpartisan analyses:
-
Republican-led states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin received failing grades for partisan fairness.
-
Democratic-led states such as Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon also showed significant partisan bias, though typically with fewer national implications.
📈 Why Republicans Have Had More Impact
-
After the 2010 Census, Republicans launched Project REDMAP, a strategic effort to win control of state legislatures and redraw congressional maps to favor GOP candidates.
-
This led to durable advantages in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina, where maps were later struck down by courts for being unconstitutional2.
-
Republican gerrymanders have often been more aggressive and durable, locking in majorities even when Democrats win more votes statewide.
⚖️ Notable Court Cases
-
Cooper v. Harris (2017): Struck down North Carolina’s racial gerrymander.
-
League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania (2018): Overturned GOP-drawn maps as violating state constitutional standards.
🧠 Bottom Line
While Democrats have certainly gerrymandered—especially in states like Illinois and Maryland—the scale, coordination, and national impact of Republican gerrymandering has been greater over the past quarter-century. If you're interested, I can show how independent commissions have changed the game in states like California and Michigan.
Tags
Who is online
174 visitors
The Republicans have gaslighted the American people into believing that when they redistrict Texas they are just playing "catch-up". Not true at all.
I think gerrymandering should be outlawed.
It's an easy problem to solve. The priorities in creating districts should be:
1. As close to equal amounts of people as practicable
2. Compactness
3. Respect county lines
4. respect municipal lines.
Let computers do it without any input other than those parameters.
As a whole, the republicans have less seats in the house than their proportionate share of the vote would indicate.
In 2024, Republicans won approximately 49.8% of the popular vote but secured 55.2% of the seats (220 of 435), while Democrats won approximately 47.2% of the popular vote but received only 44.8% of the seats (215 of 435).
In 2022, Republicans won 49.9% of the national House vote and won 55.2% of the seats (222 of 435), while Democrats won 47.3% of the vote but won only 44.8% of the seats (213 of 435).
As of 2016, in the past four congressional elections, Republicans, as the party with the majority in the House, received a “seats bonus,” wherein members of their party secured a larger share of the seats in the chamber than the share of votes won nationwide.
Clearly, Republicans have far more seats in the House than their proportionate share of the votes would warrant.
thats what i thought
The GOP % should have resulted in 216 seats, but they got 220
The Democratic percentage should have resulted in 205 seats, but they got 215.
The only people gypped are the ones who voted third party for the US House.
So Democrats benefited by 10, Republicans by 4, that is a bias towards Democrats.
here is your explanation
How Gerrymandering and Fair Maps Affected the Battle for the House | Brennan Center for Justice
Heading into Election Day, only 27 House districts were categorized as competitive by Cook Political Report . Other election forecasters had even fewer districts on their lists of tossup and lean districts. In the end, the field proved just about as thin as expected.
Only 37 districts — 22 won by a Democrat and 15 won by a Republican — were decided by five or fewer percentage points, and, of those, just 11 districts flipped between parties.
By contrast, more than 4 out of 5 districts — 169 districts won by a Democrat and 198 districts won by a Republican (90 percent of the GOP House majority) — were decided by comfortable margins of 10 or more percentage points. In fact, the vast majority of these districts were not just safe but ultra-safe.
All told, nearly 6 in 10 House districts — 112 carried by a Democrat and 132 carried by a Republican — saw the winning candidate prevail by 25 or more percentage points. These districts are so safe, it would take an unprecedented tsunami-sized wave election to flip them. Strikingly, there were more districts where the candidates prevailed by a fortress margin of 40 to 50 percentage points (55 of them) than districts where the outcomes were decided by five or fewer points (37).
========================================
The disparity is explained by the higher winning margin in districts the republicans won compared to the winning margin in districts Democrats won
You have to be amazed at how reactionary propagandists operate.
[✘]
I wouldn't mind getting rid of districts altogether and giving proportional representation a try. Citizens of states, no matter where they live within their states, would cast votes for parties instead of locally-competing individuals. Seat would be allocated to the various parties according to rounded percentages of the vote. The parties themselves would then fill whatever number of seats they've won from internal preference lists determined by the equivalent of primaries prior to election day.
That makes a lot of sense.
Ohio is one of the worst, they continually break the law even disregarding voters.
When voters are able to get a ballot issue on new fairer maps, Republicans just disregard it even if it passes. Then resort to all kinds of shenanigans to skew the votes in favor of Republicans.
Honest question, at this point does it even matter who has done it more? It's here and we the people have no power to get rid of it. It will take the politicians to make laws to change the process and as they are in thrall to the political parties nothing is likely to change as the party will not willingly give up the power and money.
This is the true threat to democracy.