Republican candidates winning Staten Island sometimes is not gerrymandering.
The Republican National Committee hiring gerrymandering consultant Thomas Hofeller in 2009 to draw them maps of Wisconsin and North Carolina that will give them absolute supermajorities even if they lose the popular vote by a wide margin, and then using those supermajorities to strip incoming Democratic governors of all of their powers thus instituting permanent one-party rule forever, that's gerrymandering.
What if I told you FiveThirtyEight’s ongoing investigation into gerrymandering is finding that the Democratic Party is gerrymandering much more than the Republican Party? 538 is a left-leaning site too.
"Redistricting has created more lean-blue districts than there once were, reducing the red bias in the house" and "dems gerrymander more than the reps" are different claims.
I did go look. If the claim made is supported by that page, I sure didn't see it. You may also go look. We're all using the same link here, and it's already been supplied.
[EDIT] Incidentally, I'm not making "the opposite claim". I'm saying I can't find support for their claim (or the opposite, in fact!) on the link they, not I, supplied. That is not the same thing as making the opposite claim.
In 2020, 222 of 435 seats were D, so 51%. The popular vote was 51.5% D, so the D's should have an extra 2 seats.
In contrast, 538's analysis shows that the R's have an advantage of 52% of the seats 538 identifies as "leaning" (with 68 seats left to have lines set).
538 shows the D's doing slightly better so far in the current redistricting balance, but they are still behind the R's on balance.
You need to read 538's work if you think corrral is wrong.
538 is claiming that dems are fighting back in the gerrymandering war this election more than they have in the past. Not that they gerrymander more than republicans, just that they are gerrymandering more than they did in the past. I don't see how anyone could expect any other outcome once gerrymandering begins and is seen as acceptable.
That’s exactly what I wish we’d codify: gerrymander as much as you possibly can and don’t be bashful about it.
Having this ridiculous system where each side gerrymanders just as much as the other but then stops when they get caught accomplishes nothing. If they’d just concede the morality of the matter and let the government dictate the morality (like it should), then we’d stop with this silly finger-pointing.
> let the government dictate the morality (like it should)
Here's a radical alternative, though: Let the people decide what is moral, and force the government to follow those moral principles.
I'm hopeful that if you asked people "Do you want uncompetitive elections where the government chooses its electors rather than the electors choosing the government?" a super-majority would say "No!".
Unfortunately that's not really the question that gets asked at election time. Instead we end up with a terrible Prisoner's Dilemma where the question is more like "Do you want a fair system that lets the other side win more often?", but such a question is itself a result of the systems that the major parties have put in place, and in any case fails the Rawls "veil of ignorance" requirement for a moral question.
What you're describing as "democratic gerrymanders" are what normal people would call "majority rule". More blue districts are being created because Republican-favoring minority-rule gerrymanders have been done away with, and the playing field is being made level.
Republican candidates winning Staten Island sometimes is not gerrymandering.
The Republican National Committee hiring gerrymandering consultant Thomas Hofeller in 2009 to draw them maps of Wisconsin and North Carolina that will give them absolute supermajorities even if they lose the popular vote by a wide margin, and then using those supermajorities to strip incoming Democratic governors of all of their powers thus instituting permanent one-party rule forever, that's gerrymandering.