But that isn't a matter of "gerrymandering" unless you repeal the entire state-level representation of Congress. Yes, Democrats occupy the House seats from the highly populated states -- they're going to get more of the popular vote and that is why a national popular vote count doesn't matter. States like Kansas and Texas don't elect more Republicans because they're gerrymandered -- they elect more republicans because they contain more Republicans (remember, the gerrymandering is used in some states to create safet "minority" districts).
I think that in order for your gerrymander apologia to have any merit, you would need to suggest prior American examples of one party winning the Congressional popular vote going away, and the other party maintaining a significant majority.
I'd do the research but frankly, I'm not interested in doing it. I'm confident that the GOP's 2010 "redistricting" regime is going to end up biting them in the ass big time. The successful political party needs to maintain a certain level of flexibility and nimbleness, in order that it can react quickly to the unanticipated. GOP "redistricting" will make that more difficult for them and tend to lock in their weaknesses.
This sort of hints me at all those states who saw the homohate wedgie slipping away, so they rushed in to pass homohating Constitutional Amendments. The "idea" was that since it was so difficult to change their Constitutions, these efforts would form a "Great Wall of Homophobia" to fend off the trend/hoards.
But, they didn't anticipate just how quickly and overwhelmingly, homohate would be relegated to the political dung heap. And now...they're stuck with trying to overcome their pathetic amendments.