I happened to be thinking about the disparity between the popular vote percentages jurisdiction-wide and the distribution of offices as a concrete measure of the degree to which the jurisdiction is gerrymandered, and you gave me an example on which to try it out.

There's already a considerable body of opinion that Michigan is highly gerrymandered. The 2012 election results put numbers on it (and I know you love numbers): If Michigan's electoral districts had been drawn fairly, you'd expect the election to produce a distribution of seats in the House roughly proportional to the distribution of popular votes cast.

You might remember from your basic Constitutional theory that in a bicameral legislature, the "House" is the "people's house", and is intended to represent a wide cross-section of the population. Elitism is supposed to be confined to a senate, which is not proportional to population.

In Michigan, Republicans got 46% of the popular vote statewide, yet ended up with 54% of the seats in the M. House.

Republican gerrymandering in Michigan has managed to literally flip the concept of majority rule and the will of the people on its head. They actually inverted the results of an election.

Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and a bit of out-and-out election fraud seem to be the only paths to victory for Republicans these days.