Hypothetically if the House size were increased, would make gerrymandering better or worse?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and it seems like a case can be made either way.

The case that it would help to make gerrymandering better is that by adding more seats to a state, you have to generally cede a greater proportion of seats to the minority party. This is because larger seats are able to span across the state and take in very unique and different communities far apart whereas there is a more physical limit as to how far smaller seats can stretch. In nearly all cases with the exception of a few close states with extreme geography, the minority party won a greater share of state legislative districts in the lower House on 2020 Pres numbers than the share of CDs won. This isn't because the congressional maps are necessarily any more or less gerrymandered, it's just as you add more seats it becomes impossible to deny certain communities' representation. It also makes it harder to absolutely eliminate all swing seats (except maybe in teh South where geography makes that hard anyways)

On the flip side, it would allow parties to gerrymander in states that right now can't be gerrymandered from a partisan standpoint, either because they only have 1 seat, or are so one sided that drawing a seat for the minority party is impossible (think WV) or there's just very few options as to what you can do. Also, states like MS where VRA creates a pretty inevitable 3-1 map could become greater redistricting weapons.

Either way this is just a hypothetical unlikely to happen but an interesting thought

[Del Tachi]

Yes, you are correct that the more districts a geography contains the more proportional the map becomes.  A map of single-voter districts is theoretically the same as full PR.

More seats also mean more required minority-access and minority-opportunity districts, which is a net benefit.  For example, MS gaining a 5th seat due to reallocation probably triggers a second VRA district. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, you are correct that the more districts a geography contains the more proportional the map becomes.  A map of single-voter districts is theoretically the same as full PR.

More seats also mean more required minority-access and minority-opportunity districts, which is a net benefit.  For example, MS gaining a 5th seat due to reallocation probably triggers a second VRA district.  

States where additional districts would be highly likely to include a new VRA district also include Alabama and Louisiana. No matter how you slice it, more seats would also be helpful to Ds in NC, by shoring up NC-01 and forcing NC-11 to shrink.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The same really.

[Figueira]

I think it would become more proportional, but there would be proportionally less competitive districts. It's harder to draw competitive districts when they're confined to a small geographic area.

[Oryxslayer]

I think it would become more proportional, but there would be proportionally less competitive districts. It's harder to draw competitive districts when they're confined to a small geographic area.

This. It's what occurred whenever I did various hypotheticals with the DRA data between 2016 and 2018. The other thing is that increasing the House's size is a comparatively easy way to lower the Electoral College vote strength discrepancy between the large and tiny states.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I think it would become more proportional, but there would be proportionally less competitive districts. It's harder to draw competitive districts when they're confined to a small geographic area.

Actually, increasing the size of the US House would do little to impact the proportional number of competitive seats.

[Boss_Rahm]

Yes, you are correct that the more districts a geography contains the more proportional the map becomes.  A map of single-voter districts is theoretically the same as full PR.

More seats also mean more required minority-access and minority-opportunity districts, which is a net benefit.  For example, MS gaining a 5th seat due to reallocation probably triggers a second VRA district. 

Unless you literally have as many districts as voters, I think it would be more accurate to say that the more districts a state has, the more reflective they will be of the state's political geography. For example, if Wisconsin had 1,000 districts I doubt it would be possible to draw a proportional map. Whereas if Wisconsin had 2 districts, a proportional map would be inevitable.

[UncleSam]

Yes, you are correct that the more districts a geography contains the more proportional the map becomes.  A map of single-voter districts is theoretically the same as full PR.

More seats also mean more required minority-access and minority-opportunity districts, which is a net benefit.  For example, MS gaining a 5th seat due to reallocation probably triggers a second VRA district. 

Unless you literally have as many districts as voters, I think it would be more accurate to say that the more districts a state has, the more reflective they will be of the state's political geography. For example, if Wisconsin had 1,000 districts I doubt it would be possible to draw a proportional map. Whereas if Wisconsin had 2 districts, a proportional map would be inevitable.

This. Just because the limit as you approach an infinite number of districts approaches proportionality does NOT mean that more districts = more proportional.

My guess is that more seats would help Dems slightly but there’s definitely places where the opposite is true.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, you are correct that the more districts a geography contains the more proportional the map becomes.  A map of single-voter districts is theoretically the same as full PR.

More seats also mean more required minority-access and minority-opportunity districts, which is a net benefit.  For example, MS gaining a 5th seat due to reallocation probably triggers a second VRA district. 

Unless you literally have as many districts as voters, I think it would be more accurate to say that the more districts a state has, the more reflective they will be of the state's political geography. For example, if Wisconsin had 1,000 districts I doubt it would be possible to draw a proportional map. Whereas if Wisconsin had 2 districts, a proportional map would be inevitable.

WI's political geography is most favorable to Ds with three seats. Milwaukee and Madison both anchor D-leaning districts that would be hard to win for Republicans.
Two seats makes for a draw, as does four. Five or more is, on balance, good for Rs.

[Pollster]

Gerrymandering would remain the same, but the reduction in the number of votes needed to win does increase the possibility of rapid trends, pronounced swings, and upsets (especially in wave years) like we often see in lower state houses.

[Figueira]

I think it would become more proportional, but there would be proportionally less competitive districts. It's harder to draw competitive districts when they're confined to a small geographic area.

This. It's what occurred whenever I did various hypotheticals with the DRA data between 2016 and 2018. The other thing is that increasing the House's size is a comparatively easy way to lower the Electoral College vote strength discrepancy between the large and tiny states.

That isn't the main problem with the electoral college, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, gerrymandering is all about degrees of freedom. On a basic level in a state with N seat you have N-1 degrees of freedom (when your state has just one at-large district, you have no freedom in drawing the lines, etc.), so gerrymandering becomes easier when you have more seats. On the opposite extreme you also end up with zero degrees of freedom when the number of seats = the number of voters, but of course no legislature ever gets to that level. Still, it's possible that there's an actual algorithmic solution that shows how degrees of freedom change with seats number, showing some type of reverse-U shape. But given how small most US legislatures are, it's almost certain that adding seats would increase gerrymandering opportunities on the whole.

Of course, this is only the abstract, big-picture view. It's almost certainly different in specific states due to quirks of political geography.