Germany does that. They have districts, which get to send the winner in each district to parliament. But these only account for a part of the total seats available.
The others are filled up from a party list in such a way that the proportions are equal to the proportions of the votes.
That way you get the best of both worlds, you have representatives that have a connection to each district, but you still have the distribution in parliament that represent the actual distribution of the votes.
It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party. It is likewise a benefit that our distribution of representatives is weighted somewhat by geography and (indirectly) economics rather than purely by population. Should flyover country count less than coastal areas because farming automation has reduced agricultural jobs per acre compared with LA or NYC? Yes, certainly, but to what degree is the question. The industrial and agricultural importance of these areas means that we are better off when we give them larger representation per-capita than they might otherwise expect due to their meagre populations.
The current system is not without faults, such as gerrymandered districts and the various factors that contribute to us having a rigid two-party system. I suspect a lot of people on HN would rather throw it all out and have strict proportional voting and/or equal-population districts. However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party
Not it is not. Politics is "team sport". Vetting individuals (look at Sinema's bleeding heart eyeroll to pure cravenness transformation) is hard. Vetting organizations is much easier.
> It is likewise a benefit that our distribution of representatives is weighted somewhat by geography and (indirectly) economics rather than purely by population. Should flyover country count less than coastal areas because farming automation has reduced agricultural jobs per acre compared with LA or NYC? Yes, certainly, but to what degree is the question. The industrial and agricultural importance of these areas means that we are better off when we give them larger representation per-capita than they might otherwise expect due to their meagre populations.
This is ridiculous. This is not the 19th century; Industry and Agriculture are big enterprises that are perfectly capable of being run on a national scale. If you want to promote them, do so based on the national interest with industrial policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy. Land-based representation promotes backwards romanticism, not well-engineered modernity.
The Senate giving us stupid things like corn ethanol is not a policy success of unfair representation!
> However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Do you really think tons of parliamentary systems around the world are hurting because they through out some sort of "baby" by adoption fair representation?
I live in a country where I pick a party to represent me in the national government, not a local person, and it seems to work just fine.
Large countries have different issues in areas that for you would be two or three whole European countries distant, and countries with larger populations have many multiples of your entire population to represent.
In stead, at a national level, a transition can be started and budget can be created to support the states that will be negatively affected. The way that budget is handled locally will then depend on local politicians who can be voted on and need to show that they're actually doing the right thing locally.
Right now, national level politicians can get reelected locally because they're just obstructionists that want nothing to ever change. They'll never actually have to do anything except fund raise and pretend to care about their constituents by blocking anything those constituents don't like. It's a great way for a couple of people to make lots of money while killing the country.
You might find it surprising that this actually happens in a country of 330M people and just 435 representatives, but it does. In part because only a small percentage of people need this service, but everyone benefits from having it as a contingency plan. Helping a single constituent can pay big dividends at election time as they tell their friends, family, and social media about your help. Likewise, not helping can cause great harm as you alienate your voter base.
At that point, who is to prevent parties from solely catering to urban area voters at the complete expense of rural voters? It's already seen as problematic that most public investments like infrastructure get directed towards urban areas, the term "flyover states" exists for a reason and we've been seeing for the last decade just how damaging that can be for a democracy.
[1] https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/leben/stadt-und-land-fak...
Even better: modify the fundamental nature of the House of Representatives such that a representative's voting power is proportional to the share of the vote they got.
Both of those are pretty major reforms, so absent those probably the best thing is to make sure the redistricting process is not controlled by a single party, and maybe imposing some restrictions on how complex the shapes can be.