Unless one has been living outside the United States 🇺🇸 for an extended time (or distracted by the world of entertainment & sports), Americans are probably aware of the legal victory the Republicans achieved at the highest court of the land.
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Texas to use a new congressional map that could help Republicans win five more U.S. House seats in the 2026 midterm election.
The decision released Thursday boosts the GOP’s chances of preserving its slim majority in the House of Representatives amid an unprecedented gerrymandering fight launched by President Trump, who has been pushing Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to benefit Republicans.
In response to Texas previously altering its maps, California decided to fight fire with fire & with the support of millions of voters, heavily gerrymandered its maps.
First a Democratic gerrymander pushed California House Republicans to the brink of extinction. Now they’re fighting each other for scraps.
In a state where Republicans had long counted on congressional races to exert some influence in Washington, just four of California’s 52 House seats are now safe for the GOP. And a decades-long slide for the party has reached a new nadir as Republicans surveying the landscape use words like “demoralized,” “massacred” and “obliteration.”
— Politico
With the nation’s future on the line, it is expected that both Democrats & Republicans will redraw districts to secure victory in the 2026 midterm elections.
While this political race to the bottom will undoubtedly result in the votes of tens of millions of citizens becoming statistically irrelevant in virtually every state, it does beg the question, “Which party will benefit nationally from excessive gerrymandering‽”
Asking the assessment of artificial intelligence (which can, in seconds, analyze years of data), it appears gerrymandering does, in the long term, favor a party—news which will delight conservatives & horrify progressives across the shared United States of America 🇺🇸.
Google’s Gemini: GOP For The Slight Win
According to Alphabet’s (formerly known as Google) artificial intelligence, Gemini, Republicans would have a slight edge over their progressive counterparts in both chambers of Congress.
While both the Republican and Democratic parties engage in partisan gerrymandering where they have the power to do so, the Republican Party has historically seen a greater net national benefit from the practice, primarily due to geographic distribution of voters. (National Library of Medicine) […]
The main reason Republicans have benefited more is related to where their voters live compared to Democratic voters, a phenomenon known as “geographic efficiency.”
- Democratic Voters are “Packed”: Democratic voters are more heavily concentrated in dense urban areas. In a non-gerrymandered system, a Democratic-leaning district might win with 80% of the vote. When gerrymandering occurs, this concentration is often used to “pack” them into a few districts, leading to massive, wasted margins of victory in those districts. While Democrats win those seats, their surplus votes don’t help them win seats elsewhere.
- Republican Voters are More “Cracked”: Republican voters are more widely and efficiently distributed across suburban, exurban, and rural areas. This distribution allows map-drawers to “crack” the votes of the opposition and create many districts where a Republican candidate can win by a narrow, but secure, margin (e.g., 52-55% of the vote). This translates more evenly into seats.
This geographic reality makes it easier for Republicans to achieve a majority of legislative seats with a smaller share of the statewide popular vote. […]
The key takeaway is that although Democrats and Republicans both use gerrymandering where they have control, the Republican Party gains a structural advantage nationally because of the pre-existing geographic clustering of Democratic voters. (The Harvard Gazette)
— Via Gemini by Google
Google’s AI analysis concludes that gerrymandering favors the GOP due to geography & the ability to reduce the influence of progressive voters.
Although Google’s assessment would displease Democrats everywhere, Grok’s evaluation will probably enrage progressives across the country.
Grok To GOP: The Gerrymandered World Is Your Oyster 🦪
According to Elon Musk’s favorite AI companion (Grok, not the other flirtatious AI), the Republican Party may end up losing a few battles, but ultimately win the political war.
If both parties were suddenly allowed and incentivized to aggressively gerrymander every single district in the United States with no legal or political restraints — meaning every state legislature (or independent commission) draws lines purely to maximize their own party’s seats — the Republicans would almost certainly end up with a structural, long-term majority in the House of Representatives, and an even larger structural advantage in the Senate. […]
If every state gerrymandered as aggressively as possible for whichever party controls the process, Republicans would gain a net of roughly 15–30 House seats compared with proportional or neutral maps.
In a national popular vote tie, Republicans would likely hold ≈255–270 seats (a solid to overwhelming majority); Democrats would need to win the national House popular vote by 5–8+ points to get a bare majority.
Long-term House control: Republicans (structural advantage of ~5–8 points) […]
The Senate is not district-based in the same way, but state boundaries are fixed, and each state gets two senators regardless of population. Gerrymandering districts doesn’t directly affect it. However, if we interpret the spirit of the question as “both parties try to maximize their power with no rules,” the relevant factor is state-level control (governorship + legislature) that can affect future statehood or other structural changes — but under current rules: […]
As of the 2020s, in a 50–50 national popular vote, Republicans typically control ≈52–54 Senate seats purely from the small-state bias.
There is literally nothing Democrats can do with redistricting to change this (short of adding new states, which is a separate conversation).
Senate control: Republicans (structural advantage of ~4–6 seats even in a tied national environment) […]
Bottom line: If America threw out all anti-gerrymandering rules and both parties went full nuclear on district lines, the House would become semi-permanently Republican (Democrats would need consistent national landslides to overcome it), and the Senate would remain semi-permanently Republican for geographic reasons that redistricting can’t touch.
Republicans win both chambers in the long run — and the House control wouldn’t even be particularly close most cycles.
— Via Grok by X
So both artificial intelligence apps agree that in future gerrymandered America 🇺🇸, progressives in the United States 🇺🇸 would have to resign themselves to being a minority party for the foreseeable future.
This would enable the Republicans to turn the USA 🇺🇸 into a supersized version of Hungary 🇭🇺 or Poland 🇵🇱, where progressives are all but pushed out of the political process & have to play constant defense against a determined conservative government.
So what can regular folks do to avoid a partisan future where team red always dominates team blue, & political parties use mob rule to rule over each other literally‽
Neutral Maps Or a Neutered Electorate
The most obvious answer is to end gerrymandering nationwide for both political parties. Democrats & Republicans both engage in gerrymandering, although the latter, as of late, has no shame about embracing this tactic.
Democrats may feel empowered to engage in a silly tit-for-tat political war with the GOP. Still, if the result means progressives lose over the next few decades, then their plan of mimicking Republicans’ tactics will backfire.
Instead, progressives—along with independents (or non-affiliated voters) & level-headed conservatives need to demand an end to gerrymandering for both parties.
The current path will only lead to America 🇺🇸 becoming a one-party-in-all-but-name nation, which will lead to corruption in the highest offices of the land & a lack of accountability by the electorate.
However, time is running out, & if voters do not find a way to make gerrymandering irrelevant, they risk their votes becoming irrelevant because of their current location.
