Now we just need a way to do that

I have some ideas.

that isn't vigilante violence.

Oh. Nevermind...

Supposedly there was a bill a few years ago to ban it that narrowly failed.

At this point maybe the best bet would be for blue states to enter the gerrymandering arms race on a conditional basis; do it as blatantly as it's being done on the other side, with some explicit clause that it will end when fair representation is implemented nationwide.

I don't think tiered representation is bad if 1: every person's vote is equal regardless of zip code 2: you have instant recall and can just have a representative replaced if they vote against their constituency wishes.

What your describing is called a Republic. There are several benefits to such a model.

The most relevant was well summarized in MIB as "a person is smart, people are stupid". A simple direct democracy is great until you are relying on an uninformed population to make a time-critical decision that requires expertise. If we instead elect people who are then expected to use tax dollars to consult experts, and then represent our interests by voting accordingly, we can theoretically avoid problems (such as the tragedy of the commons).

The downside happens when the representative takes advantage of the public's ignorance, fosters it, and wields it for personal/oligarchic gain. Ideally the people are just smart enough to see that happening and vote them out before it becomes a systemic issue...

Ah, the minority locator.

That first one is no longer like that, but according to Wikipedia was done by the Democrats.

It's a complex issue as well, because it's not always done for nefarious reasons. If say 20% of a city is black, they might bundle them up so that they end up with one black guy and four white guys running the city, rather than the 5 white guys that would come from a "fairer" distribution.

But it's all just window dressing on the fact that first past the post systems aren't fit for purpose. If I vote for something, I want that counted at all levels up to the national level, not just thrown away because my particular group of streets doesn't like it.

just one of the many reasons you see such consistent low turnouts in american elections

The idea was that you get direct representation - your representative should be focused on your issues and the issues plaguing people in your district. But it breaks down today because politicians in the US just vote with their party.

Proportional representation is the way. X% of the vote means X% of seats, no shenanigans

Because then the rich wouldn't be able to control everything

Well, each vote is counted. Gerrymandering affects (federal level in the US) only the House of Representatives, and districts are drawn (ideally) proportional to population. How those lines are drawn are not and cannot be objective; Gerrymandering is when that subjectivity allows for bias.

Pay more attention to home friend, Europe is sliding into corruption hand in hand with us. But that would get in the way of nationalism wouldn't it?

You jest, but it was named after a person:

The term "gerrymander" originated in 1812 from the redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry. The newly shaped districts, particularly one in Essex County, were said to resemble a mythological salamander. Federalist party members, critical of the practice, coined the term "Gerry-mander" (later shortened to gerrymander) by combining Gerry's name with "salamander"