Fact check: How many seats would each political party get if there was no gerrymandering

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, no source gives exact seat counts for each political party in a scenario without gerrymandering. However, the Brennan Center estimates that gerrymandering currently gives Republicans an advantage of approximately 16 House seats in the 2024 race compared to fair maps ^[1].

The most concrete example comes from Texas, where Democrats currently hold only 13 of 38 seats despite receiving between 46-48% of the vote in recent statewide federal elections. Under fair redistricting maps compliant with the Freedom to Vote Act, the median map would have 18 Democratic districts - representing a gain of 5 seats for Democrats in Texas alone ^[1].

Mathematical algorithms have been developed to create fair district maps, and current grading systems show that both Texas and Illinois have received F grades for their poorly drawn district maps ^[2]. The analyses suggest that without gerrymandering, seat distribution would be more proportional to the popular vote ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes gerrymandering is inherently problematic, but the analyses reveal both major parties engage in strategic redistricting when it benefits them. Texas Republicans passed redistricting measures creating five more congressional seats favoring their party, while California Democrats are now asking voters to temporarily abandon their independent redistricting process to counter Republican gains ^{[3] [4]}.

California voters previously backed independent redistricting for congressional seats, demonstrating public support for fair maps, but Democrats now face a "moral conflict" between maintaining fair election principles and responding to partisan gerrymandering ^[4]. This creates a never-ending cycle of gerrymandering where each side justifies their actions as defensive responses to the other party's manipulation ^{[5] [2]}.

Political parties and their leadership benefit significantly from maintaining gerrymandered districts as it helps secure safe seats and maintain power. President Trump's efforts to gain Republican seats and Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan both demonstrate how high-profile politicians directly benefit from manipulated district boundaries ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that there is a definitive answer to how many seats each party "would" get without gerrymandering. However, the analyses show that creating "fair" maps involves complex mathematical algorithms and subjective decisions about what constitutes fairness ^[2].

The question also assumes gerrymandering is a one-sided problem, when the analyses reveal both parties engage in redistricting manipulation when politically advantageous. The framing ignores the systemic nature of partisan gerrymandering where both sides participate in what sources describe as a "gerrymandering battle royale" and "arms race" ^{[5] [6]}.

Additionally, the question implies there is a single "correct" seat distribution, but the analyses suggest that fair representation depends on various factors including how districts are drawn, what mathematical models are used, and how "fairness" is defined ^{[2] [1]}.