In a review of the year article in the UK newspaper the Independent, Rupert Cornwell argues that the Republican party is in some trouble because of the drift to the right and the resulting inflexible promises they have made about tax. It isn't the point of this question to incite arguments about whether that part of the analysis is sound. But the author also claims the following:
Worst of all, the mess is of the Republicans' own making. They hold a 233-200 majority in the House, even though they lost the popular vote in congressional elections by over half a million. Americans, in other words, didn't vote for a Republican House in 2012. They got one however, thanks to the gerrymandering of Republican-controlled state legislatures.
There are two claims here, one of which surprised me as that isn't the impression generally transmitted: the republicans didn't win the popular vote. The republicans in the House are certainly acting as though they have a mandate to oppose any tax rises.
So is Cornwell's claim correct?
NB The other claim is that the republican majority resulted from gerrymandering of congressional boundaries. This is not the question here, but should be addressed in answers to this previous question: Does politically controlled redistricting in US elections make incumbents more secure?