Fact check: Who has done more gerrymandering pre 2010, republicans or democrats

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Republicans appear to have engaged in more extensive gerrymandering activities pre-2010 compared to Democrats. The evidence points to a systematic Republican strategy that culminated in significant advantages following the 2010 census.

Key findings include:

• Republicans developed a comprehensive pre-2010 strategy: They spent years developing a plan to take advantage of the 2010 census and successfully redrew House districts to tilt the playing field in their favor, achieving "unprecedented success" ^[1].
• Quantitative evidence favors Republicans: Partisan gerrymandering shifted an average of 59 seats in the U.S. House during the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections, with 39 seats shifting in favor of Republicans and only 20 in favor of Democrats ^[2].
• Republicans demonstrated superior tactical execution: Multiple sources indicate that Republicans have been "more adept at gerrymandering, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina" ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements missing from the original question:

• Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans may have done more pre-2010, "both parties have engaged in gerrymandering," with Democratic-majority states like Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts creating their own skewed district maps in response ^{[4] [3]}.
• Geographic and strategic differences: Republicans have been particularly successful "in the South and Midwest," while Democrats have concentrated their efforts in specific states where they hold power ^[5].
• Legal and institutional framework: The analyses discuss significant Supreme Court decisions that shaped the redistricting landscape, providing crucial legal context for understanding how gerrymandering operates within constitutional constraints ^[6].
• Public perception: Most Americans view gerrymandering as "a major problem and unfair," regardless of which party benefits, suggesting broad public opposition to the practice ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain explicit misinformation, but it may inadvertently promote several biases:

• False equivalency assumption: By asking "who has done more," the question implies that both parties engaged in gerrymandering equally pre-2010, when the evidence suggests a significant Republican advantage in both scale and effectiveness.
• Temporal framing limitation: Focusing solely on pre-2010 activities may obscure the ongoing nature of gerrymandering and how it has evolved since then, potentially missing the broader context of how redistricting power has shifted over time.
• Oversimplification of complex dynamics: The question reduces a complex political and legal phenomenon to a simple comparison, potentially overlooking the institutional, legal, and strategic factors that influence redistricting outcomes.

The analyses suggest that while both parties have participated in gerrymandering, Republicans developed and executed a more comprehensive and successful strategy pre-2010, resulting in measurable electoral advantages that persisted through multiple election cycles.