When I look at the map and the math behind gerrymandering, it seems that to get any electoral advantage, the boundaries have to be drawn such that four seats have a 52/48 split and one seat has a with 42/58 split. If one does the math, this five seat "state" has 250 voters for each party. Popular vote is 50/50 for Party A vs Party B. But seat split is 80/20 for Party A. That's how gerrymanding is supposed to work.

If a Party gerrymanders itself to have a solid 60% of the vote in an electoral district, they could have given 8% of their voters to another district--and win both districts.

The trouble is that the four close states could more easily flip in the next election, especially when 50% to 65% of voters do not usually vote. If 10% of non-voters decide to come to the polling station and cast a Party B vote, all five districts could go Party B.

There is an electoral risk to go for those 52/48 splits.

Having said that, some of the shapes gerrymandering are pretty weird. There really is not much connection between voters of these cobbled areas. But these are minority. Most maps I've seen have reasonable boundaries most of the time.

Many of the reasonable shapes tilt towards one party or the other. But to draw boundaries such that they are closer to 50/50 splits, that would be a different kind of gerrymandering.

In my mind, gerrymandering is a moot point in trying to fix USA's electoral process.