Key Takeaways
- In the 1812 Massachusetts redistricting led by Governor Elbridge Gerry, Jeffersonian Republicans controlled 29 of 40 state senate seats despite winning only a slim majority of the popular vote, marking the first prominent use of the gerrymander technique.
- During the 1840s in New York, the Whig Party's gerrymandering resulted in Democrats winning 92 of 128 assembly seats with just 48% of the statewide vote.
- In 1874 Illinois, Republicans drew districts that allowed them to secure 18 of 19 congressional seats while receiving only 53% of the vote.
- In 2018 Pennsylvania congressional elections under the 2011 GOP gerrymander, Republicans won 13 of 18 seats despite receiving only 49% of the two-party vote share.
- Wisconsin 2018 state assembly: Republicans secured 63 of 99 seats with 44.7% of the vote, a 25-point efficiency gap.
- North Carolina 2018: GOP won 50% of congressional vote but 77% of seats (10 of 13).
- Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) plaintiffs showed NC GOP gerrymander denied Dems 3 seats.
- Gill v. Whitford (2018) Wisconsin case: efficiency gap of 11.82% in 2016 assembly, 12.47% projected.
- In Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), Texas districts had population deviations up to 25%, challenging one-person-one-vote.
- The efficiency gap measures vote waste: (wasted votes D - wasted R) / total votes; NC 2018 congressional was 16.2%.
- Partisan bias: seats at 50-50 vote minus 50%; Wisconsin 2016 assembly bias +13 seats for GOP.
- Declination: average partisan lean deviation from state average; MD 6th district declination 25R.
- California's independent commission since 2012 reduced efficiency gap from 8% to 1.5%.
- Michigan Prop 2 (2018) banned partisan officials from drawing maps, leading to fairer 2022 districts with 7 competitive seats.
- Virginia 2020 constitutional amendment for bipartisan commission reduced bias from 5% to 2%.
Across decades, gerrymandering lets parties win most seats on minority vote shares, even under court challenges.
Related reading
01 · Category
Historical Statistics30 stats
Historical Statistics Interpretation
02 · Category
Impact On Election Outcomes25 stats
Impact On Election Outcomes Interpretation
03 · Category
Legal And Court Cases23 stats
Legal And Court Cases Interpretation
More related reading
04 · Category
Measurement And Detection20 stats
Measurement And Detection Interpretation
05 · Category
Reform And Mitigation Efforts21 stats
Reform And Mitigation Efforts Interpretation
Gerrymandering vs. fairer outcomes
Across reform approaches, gerrymandering is linked to larger seats-votes gaps and reduced competitiveness, while commission-based systems show more fairness in simulations and smaller bias.
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
Thomas Lindqvist. (2026, February 13). Gerrymandering Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/gerrymandering-statistics
Thomas Lindqvist. "Gerrymandering Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/gerrymandering-statistics.
Thomas Lindqvist. 2026. "Gerrymandering Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/gerrymandering-statistics.
Sources & references
61 datasets cited across this report · attribution is report-level

