trying to reverse the gerrymandering

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (Robert)]

I suspect that you're right.  The gerrymandering craze that's going on
right now will likely become standard practice going forward.  Which could
get a little strange since the people you voted for may not always be your
representatives.

Below is what Brave says about why we'll probably have a one-party
(Republican) country for the foreseeable future.

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly ensure a conservative majority,
but its structural design -- particularly EQUAL SENATE REPRESENTATION AND
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- disproportionately empowers smaller, often more
conservative, states.

Equal representation in the Senate gives low-population states the same
power as large ones, allowing a minority of the population to block or
pass legislation. By 2040, 70% OF AMERICANS COULD BE REPRESENTED BY JUST
30 SENATORS from the smallest states.

The Electoral College amplifies this effect in presidential elections.
Because each state gets electors based on its total congressional
delegation (House + Senate), SMALLER STATES HAVE MORE ELECTORAL INFLUENCE
PER VOTER. For example, Wyoming has one electoral vote per ~190,000
people, while Ca has one per ~700,000.

These constitutional features, combined with a conservative-leaning
Supreme Court -- where justices are often appointed by presidents who lost
the popular vote -- enable durable conservative influence even without
majority popular support.