This illustrates the undemocratic consequences of Democratic gerrymandering across the country which solidifies the Democrats’ hold on hundreds of congressional districts and thereby denying conservatives from electing congressmen to represent conservative policies.
Be careful what you wish for.
Republicans have been more successful at redistricting ("gerrymandering") than Democrats; Democrats received a million + more congressional votes than Republicans, but Republicans hold a solid majority in the house. This advantage will last at lesat through 2020.
Most estimates are that if you drew the "fairest" possible districts, Democrats would control the House.
Similarly, if you apportioned senate seats by population (the rule of equal proportions), there would likely be around 18-20 "conservative" Senators (TX and FL would make a big contribution to that) - small state and rural over-representation in the Senate is a *huge* built-in conservative advantage. Even if you assigned 1 seat to each state, and apportioned the rest
California 10 seats
Texas would have 7
New York and Florida, would have 5
Illinois and Pennsylvania would have 4
Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan would have 3
Eleven other states would have their current 2
Twenty-eight states, would have one 1
Bottom line is that conservatives currently have structural advantages in both the House and Senate, not the other way around.
And that anything that made apportionment fairer (in terms of equal voting power for each voter) would work to the Democrat, not conservative, advantage.