Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Democratic gerrymandering compare to Republican gerrymandering in terms of partisan bias?
Executive Summary
Democratic and Republican gerrymandering both produce measurable partisan bias, but multiple studies show the overall national effect is mixed: some work finds biases largely cancel out while other analyses document a substantial Republican advantage in recent cycles. The appropriate comparison depends on the metric used (efficiency gap, simulations, mean-median) and whether one examines individual states, the aggregate House, or changes across redistricting cycles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why the answer depends on how you measure “bias” — metrics drive conclusions
Researchers disagree about partisan advantage largely because different metrics capture different phenomena, and those methodological choices shape conclusions. The efficiency gap—the difference in wasted votes between parties divided by total votes—has been presented as a robust, operational test and satisfies a set of proposed criteria for evaluating gerrymandering metrics, according to proponents [1]. Other measures, like partisan bias or the mean-median difference, often fail certain consistency tests and can mislead in particular electoral settings, so studies relying on them may reach different conclusions about which party benefits and by how much [1]. The choice of metric therefore determines whether maps appear to favor Republicans, Democrats, or neither.
2. Simulations show cancelation at the national level — but with small Republican tilt
Several simulation-based studies comparing enacted plans to large ensembles of nonpartisan alternatives find that while both parties engage in mapmaking, the net national effect is modest and tends to leave Republicans with a small seat advantage. A 2023 simulation study concluded that partisan gerrymandering mostly cancels out nationally, leaving Republicans with roughly a two-seat edge in the House and indicating Democrats are structurally disadvantaged by geography to the tune of about eight seats in some analyses [2] [6]. These simulation approaches emphasize structural geography and rules as major drivers, limiting the pure attributable effect of intentional partisan mapmaking.
3. Counterpoint: cycle-specific analyses show substantial GOP advantages in recent maps
Other analyses focusing on the 2020–2024 redistricting cycle find marked Republican advantages that exceed the modest national tilts reported in some simulation studies. The Brennan Center’s September 2024 assessment estimated that GOP-controlled redistricting created roughly a 16-seat advantage for Republicans in the 2024 House maps relative to fair baselines, driven by aggressive lines in the South and Midwest and reflecting that many Democratic plans produced less durable seat gains [3]. Historical trend analyses likewise document increasing pro-Republican efficiency gaps in recent decades, with 2012 and the following cycles showing unusually large pro-GOP imbalances relative to the latter 20th century [5].
4. State-by-state variation undermines a single national story
A pronounced feature across studies is heterogeneity across states: gerrymandering effects are concentrated where one party controlled mapmaking and where geographic clustering allowed extreme packing or cracking. Some states show clear Democratic gains—Illinois is cited as a major Democratic offset in one 2024 account—while other states like Texas and North Carolina contributed heavily to Republican seat advantages [3]. Simulation-based counterfactuals similarly show that partisan outcomes often reflect both mapmaker intent and natural voter geography; thus national aggregates can mask intense local distortions that matter for representation and policy [4] [6].
5. What the evidence says about intent versus structural causes
Studies that construct nonpartisan counterfactuals emphasize that much of the observed bias can stem from voter geography and neutral redistricting rules, not solely deliberate partisan intent. Simulation and comparative studies conclude that while intentional gerrymanders produce measurable gains in some states, the aggregate partisan effect is attenuated by geography and institutional constraints, so assigning all bias to partisan designers overstates their role in national-level seat shares [4] [6]. Nevertheless, cycle-specific and efficiency-gap-focused research documents deliberate map-drawing that systematically advantaged Republicans in crucial states during recent redistricting rounds [3] [5].
6. What this means for comparative judgment and policy debates
Comparing Democratic to Republican gerrymandering requires clarifying the metric, scale, and timeframe: Democratic gerrymanders exist and can be effective locally, but several recent analyses conclude Republican mapmaking produced larger and more durable national seat advantages in the 2010s–2020s redistricting cycles. Other work stresses that much of the partisan seat gap arises from structural factors and that when nonpartisan baselines are used the net national bias shrinks to a small Republican edge [2] [6] [3]. The divergence among studies reflects differing priorities—legal standards favoring clear metrics like the efficiency gap, simulation work that isolates geography, and policy analyses focusing on cycle-specific abuses—so policy responses must match the specific failure being addressed rather than rely on a single headline number [1].