Fact check: How many seats would each political party get if they gerrymander all their states?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that while specific seat counts for a hypothetical scenario where all parties gerrymander their states are not provided, the current impact of gerrymandering is well-documented. Republicans currently gain an advantage of approximately 16 House seats through gerrymandering in the 2024 race, with their biggest advantages coming from Texas, Florida, and North Carolina ^[1]. Democrats have smaller gerrymandering advantages in states like Illinois and New Jersey ^[1].

The sources indicate that Republicans have more opportunities to gerrymander House districts than Democrats due to controlling more state legislatures during redistricting cycles ^[2]. This has created what experts describe as an "artificial head start" for Republicans in House elections ^[1]. The practice has become increasingly sophisticated and "more egregious" over time, with both parties using it to maximize their electoral advantage ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context that the analyses provide:

• The role of independent redistricting commissions: Some states have established independent and nonpartisan commissions to draw electoral maps, which would limit the ability of parties to gerrymander "all their states" ^[2].
• Legal and legislative constraints: The analyses mention the failed Freedom to Vote Act, which aimed to prohibit partisan gerrymandering, indicating there are ongoing efforts to limit this practice ^[1].
• State court interventions: State courts play a significant role in shaping congressional districts, which can override partisan gerrymandering attempts ^[1].
• The cyclical nature of redistricting: The sources highlight that redistricting occurs every decade following the census, meaning the ability to gerrymander is limited by timing and political control at specific moments ^[4].

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Republican Party leadership benefits from downplaying gerrymandering concerns while they hold advantages in key states
• Democratic Party leadership benefits from emphasizing gerrymandering as a threat to democracy while they trail in the practice
• Reform organizations and advocacy groups benefit from promoting the narrative that gerrymandering threatens democratic representation

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading: it presupposes that parties have the ability to "gerrymander all their states." The analyses reveal this is factually incorrect for several reasons:

• Not all states are controlled by single parties - parties cannot gerrymander states where they lack legislative control ^[2]
• Independent commissions exist in multiple states, preventing partisan gerrymandering regardless of party control ^[2]
• Legal and constitutional constraints limit the extent of gerrymandering even where parties have control ^[1]

The question also implies a hypothetical "arms race" scenario that the sources suggest could lead to a "never-ending cycle of partisan manipulation" with serious consequences for democratic representation ^[5]. This framing may inadvertently normalize or trivialize what the sources describe as a significant threat to fair elections and voter representation ^[4].