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.
Which political party has gerrymandered more seats in the United States historically?
Executive Summary
Both major U.S. parties have a long, bipartisan history of using redistricting to their advantage, but evidence from several recent analyses shows Republicans have produced more consistently advantageous maps in the modern era, particularly since the 2000s, yielding a measurable seat advantage in recent federal elections. Historical peaks of partisan map‑making occurred under both parties in different eras, making any single “most gerrymandered” claim contingent on the chosen timeframe, metric and geography [1] [2] [3].
1. The historical arc: both parties have wielded maps as weapons
Gerrymandering is not a new tactic and both Democrats and Republicans have used redistricting to entrench power at different times in U.S. history; scholars cite major waves after Reconstruction in the late 19th century and repeated abuses across the 20th century when state governments controlled line drawing [1]. The practice historically reflected whoever held state legislative power: each era’s dominant party shaped districts to its advantage, producing alternating periods of aggressive partisan map‑making. That bipartisan lineage matters because simple tallies of “who gerrymandered more seats ever” obscure shifting political control, the changing size and location of states’ delegations, and evolving mapping technologies that alter how maps translate votes into seats [4] [5].
2. The modern pattern: data points show a Republican edge since 2000
Multiple contemporary analyses identify a Republican advantage in seat outcomes attributable to post‑census redistricting conducted by GOP‑controlled state governments, notably in the 2010s and into the 2020s. Research aggregators and watchdogs found that Republican‑drawn maps, concentrated in the South and Midwest, produced a net boost in U.S. House seats; the Brennan Center estimated roughly a 16‑seat Republican edge in 2024 due to map drawing effects, a concrete metric showing how modern maps can distort representation [3]. Reporting and academic work argue that the combination of state legislative control, sophisticated modeling, and targeted packing/cracking tactics has made Republican maps more durable in producing seat bonuses after the 2000 and 2010 censuses [2] [6].
3. Why the 21st‑century advantage favors Republicans: mechanics and geography
The Republican edge in recent cycles stems from a convergence of factors: GOP dominance of state legislatures after 2010, concentrated Democratic votes in large urban districts that naturally “waste” votes, and the adoption of advanced partisan mapping software that refines packing and cracking to maximize seat returns. States in the South and Midwest with multiple districts offered fertile ground for GOP gains, while Democratic advantages in states like California or New York are often muted by geography and incumbency protections. Analysts note that measuring “more gerrymandering” depends on the metric used — seats won above proportional vote share, asymmetry in efficiency gaps, or simulated map baselines — and multiple studies point to Republican maps producing larger and more consistent seat distortions in recent decades [2] [6].
4. Counterpoints and limits: apples, oranges, and measurement choices
Not all sources agree that one party “has gerrymandered more” across all time; methodological differences produce different conclusions. Some neutral mapping projects and academic summaries emphasize bipartisan culpability and note that Democrats produced skewed maps in some states and eras, so a long‑run, cumulative count is sensitive to which periods and levels (state vs. federal) are included [7] [1]. Critics also caution that partisan map effects can be reversed quickly when control shifts, that courts and independent commissions alter outcomes in many states, and that natural geographic sorting complicates attribution of seat advantage solely to map designers [8] [5].
5. What to watch next: legal fights, commissions, and metrics that matter
The near‑term balance of map‑driven advantage will depend on legal rulings, independent commission adoption, and technological countermeasures. Courts have intermittently curtailed extreme gerrymanders, and some states have moved to nonpartisan commissions to reduce blatant partisan control; these reforms can blunt map‑makers’ power and change who benefits in future cycles. Watch measures such as efficiency gap estimates, simulation baselines and post‑redistricting seat swings to assess whether the recent Republican advantage persists or erodes — the headline that “one party gerrymandered more” is accurate for recent decades under certain metrics, but historically the story is bipartisan and context‑dependent [3] [1].