"Perfect enemy of the good" fallacy, if that's a thing.
Gerrymandering can add ~30% of representatives for the party controlling it, so changing it to a party method does improve things a lot, even if it is arguably very far from perfect.
> "Perfect enemy of the good" fallacy, if that's a thing.
Its only a thing when the "perfect" is not a real alternative.
Systems that produce more proportional representation than any means of line drawing in single-member winner-take-all districts are real alternatives that are well-established in the real world.
Well, proportional representation is mathematically and theoretically possible in the US, but culturally and politically as likely as adopting Chinese as official language. That won't change for decades at least.
But changing how districts are drawn actually does happen in this country. California degerrymanderified their process a few years ago.
Gerrymandering can add ~30% of representatives for the party controlling it, so changing it to a party method does improve things a lot, even if it is arguably very far from perfect.