Did I not account for that? Candidates of all parties can present any number of candidates. People in rural areas would still have a choice. In Illinois, it wouldn't just be Chicago liberals voting. There are conservatives in the whole state. They would elect their share of representatives.

My design may not balance everything, but adding to it could resolve those issues. Redistricting, in its current form, will always be hyper-political and abused. There has to be a way to take that out of the equation.

My number one comment is that "districting" is not a constitutional guarantee. If the current system is broken, as it so clearly is, why not look at alternatives?

Not trying to be a jerk, but calling it "[your] design" is a strong characterization. It's called proportional representation, and used in (...quick Wikipedia check...) 87 countries around the world already. Not saying it's a bad idea. It's just not a new one.

One downside to PR is that you lose the sense of having "my representative" in Congress. When an Illinoisian (to use your article's example) disagrees with a policy, who do you call? Each of the 18 representatives on the two party lists? Maybe.

(and yes, I would concede that with extreme gerrymandering, the geographic sense of "my representative" is also dead in lots of places now... though at least you have a person to call and hold accountable)

An alternative -- that was recently passed by voter referendum in Maine -- is the Single Transferrable Ballot (or ranked voting), which retains single-member districts, and opens the door for greater than two parties, even with voters choosing strategically.

I honestly came to this idea on my own. That it actually exists is cool.