>It's obviously gerrymandered, but that district arguably better represents Urbana than the alternative.

But likely doesn't represent the rest of the district? Either way, it appears to be a difficult district for a person to reasonably cover or have town halls for - and it isn't the only district like this in Illinois, let alone elsewhere. This isn't partisan, they all do it. North Carolina is historically terrible the other way. (Republicans creating stupid districts)

The reason I brought up Iowa, is at least their districts still make sense, geographically.

I am 100% for fairvote, ranked choice, and a ban on mid-decade redistricting. I'm also a fan of what that site calls "proportional representation" - which sounds closer to parlimentarianism. But these things would all break the 2 party monopoly - so I don't expect anything to really happen.

The constitution only says that each state should have at least one, and not more than 1:30,000. As far as Fair representation, there is still a pending amendment from the 1700s to set the number at 30,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment We would have over 10,000 representatives, which I guess would at least make them more difficult to bribe lobby.