IMO, lifting the cap on the number of representatives we can have as a nation is the best way to fight this issue. Representatives are supposed to represent the people in their district. If each representative represented no-more than, say, 200k people, then gerrymandering would almost be impossible and the people would be better represented.

Yes, we'd have a LOT more representatives. But we also now have the technology to support such a thing.

> As a result [of the Reapportionment Act of 1929], the average size of a congressional district has tripled in size—from 210,328 inhabitants based on the 1910 Census, to 710,767 according to the 2010 Census. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

That would help somewhat but all it would do is require more computational power to draw imperfect districts. The fundamentals of gerrymandering do not change with doubling the number of districts. And my proposal is based on the idea that today House reps do not represent their district. Look at people like Pelosi and AOC and Nunes. They represent voters from across the whole country but are only elected in their districts. The debates we have are also largely national, not district-level. Most reps spend little time in their districts. They are national level politicians, so why do we pretend like they are the politicians representing just your neighborhood?

Likely it means that big cities would get all the reps and the rest of the state gets nothing.

As that is where most of the people live, why is it wrong? Why does largely unpopulated land get a vote?

This. Why do voters living in rural areas get more weight to their votes? This is obviously more pronounced in the Senate, but clearly also a problem in the House.

A better route would be proportional representation. You vote for a party-ranked list of candidates, and the top n% of the list gets into office based on the fraction of the vote the party received. Unlike single-member plurality voting, this makes third parties viable.

That of course defeats the purpose of smaller districts getting a voice and not being crushed by larger districts.

Yes. That’s a feature, not a bug. 10m people in a city should get 10x the say than 1m people in the surrounding rural land. Why would you ever want it to be different other than trying to skew elections towards giving rural residents disproportionate amounts of voting power?

Why stop there? Why do small states get the same number of Senators as large states? All the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic but you are correct. There is zero reason for the Senate to work the way it does as it is very clearly an unfair system. Instead, Senators should be nationally elected: 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them.

> 100 spots and every voter votes on every one of them

So then all the Senators should just be from California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

What would be the problem with that?

The small states getting the same number of senators as large states is partly a legacy of slavery. Interestingly, the constitution explicitly prohibits the 2-senators-per-state rule from being amended away (Article V).

Can you amend that prohibition?

Good question. If you want to get into the weeds, there are a couple articles worth looking at: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/CONLAW/unamend... https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

The short answer is yes. The long answer is that the Supreme Court would have to get involved. And they are very reluctant to make any kind of new interpretation of the Constitution for something like this.

Any answer to the question would be a new interpretation, since the clause hasn’t previously been litigated.

But you can clearly amend the powers of the Senate, including abolishing all of them. And/or create a third house of Congress, without equal per-state representation.

I mean, it's fun to think about at a purely theoretical/academic level. But practically speaking, none of this could ever happen.

I wouldn’t be so sure; it would require getting states to vote against their narrow parochial interests, but it's not inconceivable that it could happen. It would probably take a crisis of legitimacy in which the disaffection of the underrepresented states was sufficient to threaten the viability of the union, though.

I've imagined a workaround where states would be de-stated if they fell below a threshold percentage of the total population or be required to split if they grew above an upper bound percentage. The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats (this is true, you can look it up).

> The only reason there are two Dakotas is to give the Republicans two extra senate seats

First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about. The two Dakota territories gained statehood in 1889, long before there was any kind of notion of the modern-day Republican party.