> There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You make it sound like the number of states has always been the same, and

> There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You make it sound like the number of states has always been the same, and cannot change. In reality, Congress gets to decide which states to add (and which potential states to deny), and it does so with deliberate consideration of how the electoral votes would be affected. One could even argue that states gerrymander their own electoral vote by choosing to give all their electors to the plurality winner within their state, when they could choose to assign electors proportionally instead. They don't literally draw up per-elector districts to produce this skewed result, but the result is the same as a very skilled after-the-fact gerrymander, so I think it's a reasonable comparison. Anyway, I wasn't just talking about gerrymandering at the Presidential level. The problem exists in the individual state legislatures too (although it's hard to calculate an average across different states), and in Congress. For example, an interesting analysis[0] from 2016 found that: > In the past four congressional elections, then, Republicans, as the party with the majority in the House, received a “seats bonus,” wherein members of their party secured a larger share of the seats in the chamber than the share of votes won nationwide. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-congress/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-b...