I'm confused by the description of the formula. > This formula—called the “efficiency gap”—cites two types of “wasted votes” in the redistricting process: “los

I'm confused by the description of the formula. > This formula—called the “efficiency gap”—cites two types of “wasted votes” in the redistricting process: “lost votes” cast in favor of a defeated candidate, and “surplus votes” cast in favor of a winning candidate that weren’t actually necessary for the candidate’s victory. The efficiency gap is, in Stephanopoulos’ words, “the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast.” > When both Democrats and Republican waste roughly the same number of votes, the efficiency gap is near zero. Say there's an election and the candidate from party A gets 51,000 votes and the candidate for party B gets 49,000 votes. So, party B had 49,000 wasted votes (their candidate didn't win), while party A had 1,999 wasted votes (they weren't necessary to win). So, we calculate the efficiency gap as (49000-1999)/100000, or 47.001%. That's really high, but there's not necessarily any gerrymandering going on. Presumably when a state has a lot of races, each party will win some and lose some, so the efficiency gap won't be so heavily skewed. However, supposing you had ten districts that were completely homogeneous and one party won all ten by a narrow margin, the efficiency gap would be the same very high value of 47.001%. Is it fair to call that an example of gerrymandering? If we labelled it as a result of unconstitutional gerrymandering, is that kind of like saying the voters the wrong way? Can there be false positives where the efficiency gap is high without gerrymandering? Or am I just misunderstanding the description of the formula?