This is really less of an unsolvable problem than people make it out to be - it's just that most of the discussion you hear about it is from the political parties both of which benefit from its existence and, especially, the incumbents who have a much more secure seat with careful district drawing to make sure you don't get too many progressives that might vote out a centrist (or ditto on the other side)
1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mathematician...
Remember, you also have to sell the idea to the public, and which is easier to sell: "Trust this complex algorithm built by mathematicians and their fancy computer models who most certainly aren't secretly biased toward the candidate you dislike", or "RECTANGLES! :D"
I don't see any problems with this myself, as long as the algorithms are fair -- what are some downsides of this, though?
But actually - there are two classes of algorithms out there: one can determine how to fairly divide up a state and another measures how unfairly a state is divided up - instead of going full into computers-determine-everything it might be nice to just have a requirement that the result of the election in the state is relatively statistically probable given the proportions of votes for each party. So people could still draw districts we would just have a manner to prove their districts are acceptably fair.
1. There would be a lot of sudden changes, without any real explanation about those particular changes.
2. Unlike now there would be little on-the-ground reasoning to these changes. Districts would be split on random-seeming streets, with no respect at all about residents felt. Now at least you have someone to blame, and we like to have someone to blame rather than "the computer".
No you (practically) cannot, that's kinda the point
Proportional representation of house members per state is one option. Which would be completely constitutional, btw.
Proportional representation is the most common electoral system for national legislatures (and is also used by e.g. EU parliament).
Apparently, there used to be more at large states, except states were using it to dilute minority votes. (The white majority was large enough to elect all-white representatives.) In 1986, this was ruled to violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. [1]
As for how to fix it, I'm no expert but off the top of my head
1. Allow public submissions for districts to prevent rigging choices
2. Create an objective set of measurements for scoring districts with the , e.g. maximize compactness, minimize perimeter, other measures that would help combat gerrymandering
3. Highest score wins? Top N finalists are voted on by legislature?
Hardly perfect, and I'm sure someone's thought about this harder and could do better. But nearly anything has got to be better than "the party in power every 10 years is given a carte blanche opportunity to further solidify their power"
Aren't voting them out and gerrymandering somewhat mutually exclusive?
https://votersnotpoliticians.com/redistricting/
We'll see how well it works after this census.
But who should determine who draws electoral lines? Right now, it's in the hands of elected officials, so you can at least vote them out if they gerrymander.
If electoral lines are drawn by a nonpartisan commission, who appoints the commission? How do you ensure the members of the commission stay nonpartisan? Can the public hold members of this commission accountable?
Definitely our current system is broken; what are some alternatives to elected officials drawing electoral lines that are promising?