I was thinking about the redistricting fiasco and recent SCOTUS ruling abomination and have concluded that the whole concept of a congressional district electing a single representative in Congress is fatally flawed.

Consider a state that has an evenly distributed population that is 80% republican and 20% democratic voters. Suppose the state was divided into 100 equal area square "districts" of 100,000 people per district. Each district would be 80% republican and 20% democratic.

If there was only one representative elected per district, there would almost certainly end up being 100 republicans elected to Congress. How can this possibly fairly represent the state's 20% democratic voters? The representatives have no incentive to do anything that would benefit the 20% minority population since they only need the votes of the 80% majority to be elected again and again.

And of course, the same thing would apply to an 80% democratic and 20% republican district.

It seems to me that an ideal way to fix this would be to elect MORE than one representative per district. How many more is up for debate, but I'd suggest at least 10.

The result would be 4350 House members. Yeah, it's a lot, but it would much more fairly represent the population fairly. And somehow, ideally, each representative SHOULD represent the same number of people. That might necessitate even more members.