that’s an easy solve though…

it’s pretty easy to put a number to how gerrymandered a region is: ungerrymandered means that if you were to look at all the votes in the state without districts that’s your ideal ratio… if you then add districts and that ratio is different, it’s perhaps gerrymandered

so if the goal is to stop gerrymandering, you get a bunch of states to sign some interstate compact that measures gerrymandering across the country and says any state that’s part of the compact will (perhaps in the next election, perhaps based on projections for the current voting maps based on prior voting behaviour) gerrymander to an equal or greater degree to offset or punish gerrymandering overall… ie you can gerrymander your state but at best it’ll mean nothing when it comes to the ratio of votes

I honestly think they revel in it. They love the fact that they can force rules to apply to you and then feel powerful when they break them when it suits their goals.

All congressional districts already work like that. Gerrymandering is the practice of re-drawing distirct borders within an area so that your team has more districts with your voters as the majority.

The whole point though is that everybody is supposed to get equal representation.

You're confusing the districts with Presidential election results.

In the presidential election the district lines actually don't matter in terms of the outcome. They are just usually reported on election night as "by district". This is likely what you are confusing or misremembering.

But, the state itself is based on a popular vote for the presidential election that determines who wins ALL of the states "electoral college votes". Yes, stupidly confusing i know.

Meaning after counting all the votes in the entire state the winner is declared based on popular vote and ALL the "electoral votes" of those states will go to that winner.

Now, this is true for all BUT two states. Main and Nebraska are the exception. Their electoral votes are not "winner take all" for the popular vote. So, if it was one of those states what you are thinking would be correct actually. They split their electoral votes of the state based on the districts.

What is being discussed about districts in the OPs image is the redrawing of district maps. Each district elects a single representative in The House of Representatives. This is won by popular vote within each district and each district is independently represented. The votes from one district have nothing to do with the votes from another in this case.

This has always been a means of drawing the lines such that more of a certain party is likely to get more representatives. But, historically, this has primarily been aggressively done in red states. Especially in the south in order to reduce black voter and minority voter representation. Usually by attempting to draw a single district with as many black and minority voters as possible so they only get one representative.

Hope that clears up the confusion. You're being downvoted but I think you're just confused in a very purposely confusing electoral system.

Good point. The gerrymandering has been exploited more by the Republicans, so they have less to gain from further redistricting.

The total seats / number of districts is capped and set for each state. It should be uncapped but that is besides the point

. The redistricting / gerymandering makes use of packing (putting as many X voting areas into a single district to give them less voting power by basically wasting their vote since their candidate wouldve won that distric anyways) and cracking (splitting X voting areas up into multiple districts which will be majority Y voting).

This means that with even numbers of X and Y voting people, they can be partitioned so that 9/10 districts for example are 55-45 for Y, and the remaining X voting people can be packed into the last district. The end result is Y winning 90% of the districts with only 50% of the overall support.

Every ten years they adjust the number of house reps per state based on the state census survey.

not quite. they're saying Republicans would control more state Congresses and governorships, but Democrats would get more federal congressional seats.

but if Republicans control more states, they'd also control more federal Senate seats