The problem isn't global representation; it's local fairness. (The 538 analysis is correct in that sense.) The problem is that for any given district, the proba

The problem isn't global representation; it's local fairness. (The 538 analysis is correct in that sense.) The problem is that for any given district, the probability of overturning the gerrymander is, in practice, impossible. In states with legislatively controlled redistricting (the bulk of them) without controls on the redistricting process, the disenfranchisement is global to everyone — even if you're a blue voter in a blue district, or a red voter in a red district. The person who wins is the incumbent. For instance, based on ACS and latest CVAP, my district is ~65/35. More importantly, my representative explicitly drew several GOP contenders out of his district to seal his re-election chances. I know he did this, because he had this conversation with Abbot (Governor of Tx) while I was standing a few feet away from them. The point of a gerrymander is to maintain power, not to have some sort of ideological, or political stance.