I hate it when the facts do not fit my assumptions: Election Edition

I hate it when the facts undercut my assumptions.

I had assumed that it was gerrymandering that cost the Democrats their majority in the House of Representatives.  

But tonight I took a look at the states in which a disproportionate number of seats were won by Republicans, as compared to state-wide votes for Governor or Senate; and then did the same states in which a disproportionate number of seats were won by Democrats.

Gerrymandering in the following states gave Republicans disproportionate numbers of members of the House: Alabama 6(R)-1(D), Arizona 6-3, Florida 20-8, Louisiana 5-1, Missouri 6-2, Ohio 10-5, Texas 25-13, Wisconsin 6-2.  My rough estimate is that the Republicans secured, unfairly if the districting should reflect the statewide preference numbers,  4 extra seats each in Florida and Texas, 2 extra seats each in Arizona and Wisconsin, and one extra seat each in Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio.  A total of 16 "extra" seats.

But gerrymandering gave Democrats  disproportionate numbers in these states: California 40(D)-12(R), Colorado 5-2, Connecticut 5-0, Illinois 14-3, Maryland 7-1, Massachusetts 9-0, New Jersey 9-3, New Mexico 3-0. My rough estimate is that the Democrats secured, unfairly if the districting should reflect the statewide preference numbers, 9 extra seats in California, 5 extra seats in Illinois, 3 extra seats in Massachusetts, 2 extra seats each in Connecticut and New Jersey, and one extra seat each Colorado, Maryland, and New Mexico.  A total of 24 "extra" seats.  (Note that New York's 15-11 result is not too different from the statewide votes for Senate and Governor.)

So this quick comparison suggests that if all states had districting that reflected the votes of their populations, then Democrats would have won eight fewer seats than it actually won.  

In terms of the true popular will, it is still true that even with fair districting nationwide, every state, no matter how small its population, gets one member of the House.  But that does not appear to skew the situation as badly as one might assume.  Only 5 states are so small that they only have one House member: Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.  And in the upcoming Congress, 3 of those seats will be held by Republicans and 2 will be held by Democrats.

Gerrymandering is a bad thing, but it appears (to my surprise) that that was not, on balance, the reason the Democrats lost the House.  I hate it when the facts contradict my hypotheses.  

In terms of the true popular will, it is still true that even with fair districting nationwide, every state, no matter how small its population, gets one member of the House.  But that does not appear to skew the situation as badly as one might assume.  Only 6 states are so small that they only have one House member: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.  And in the upcoming Congress, 3 of those seats will be held by Republicans and 3 will be held by Democrats.

We have a very divided country.  Democratic strategists should recognize that the House is not as unreflective of the voters as appears to be the conventional wisdom. In 2020, Joe Biden received 51.3% of the popular vote, to Donald Trump's 46.8%.  The turnout for Presidential contests is always higher than in other contests.  So another part of the challenge is to convince people to vote in the down-ballot contests, too. The challenge is to convince and mobilize more people (whether they have voted in the past or not) to support Democratic policies.