Well, there has to be some better standard measure for congressional maps, other than how much it benefits a certain party. One option is to have proportional representation, where each party is represented equally. A map that has one district for each party and 3 tossups would equally suffice. Additionally, maps could be measured based on how "compact" they are. As a result, a map that contained perfect rectangles would be preferred over maps with an extremely large salients or long lines. Another way to divide up the map is to try to make as many districts that are as competitive as possible. Test these methods below
It might be surprising how the compact option did not produce significant disparities between the two parties between the three maps. There were no compact maps that ensured victory for one side or the other. This is not always the case. As found in FiveThirtyEight's Atlas of Redistricting, various maps that were "compact" had significant biases towards Republicans, an example being Pennsylvania, which had a 9% wasted vote bias towards Republicans in a map that preserved county borders while being maximally compact and an 11% wasted vote bias towards Republicans in a map that ignored borders while being maximally compact.