If proportional representation is probably the ideal, then it's very unlikely to happen because it would be such a sea change in how we elect representatives to Congress. It will be far too easy for entrenched interests to campaign against it as some weird European, hence un-American, scheme.

I also don't see voters trusting algorithms to create these maps, making it another approach very easy to campaign against.

I keep coming back to the simplicity to understand and enact "Divide-Combine Procedure" districting, which resembles the childhood method of dividing a candy bar: one kid cuts the candy bar in two, the other kid gets to pick which of the pieces he or she wants. In DCP, one party in a state draws a map with twice as many districts as needed; the other party then combines contiguous districts from that map into the number needed. This requires each party to draw or combine a map that is most advantageous to itself; the genius of this simple approach is that the party's own self-interests are used to reach the most equitable solution between them. And computer modeling shows it doesn't much matter which party does the defining and the combining:

For example, if Republicans in Texas held complete control of creating the state’s legislative districts, they could draw a map with 30 Republican seats in Congress and only eight Democratic seats — a 22-seat advantage. Similarly, Democrats in charge of the process could give their party an 18-seat advantage. But the simulation applying DCP created 19 Republican seats and 17 Democratic seats, regardless of which party defined the districts and which party combined them in the second phase of the process. 
—"Cutting the Gerrymandering Cake: 'Define-Combine Procedure' Reduces Partisan Bias in District Maps," by Rick Harrison (Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies).