I think the issue here is that there’s complaints about a system and it seems like we’re either not fully appreciating why the system is the way it is and how some of those things that appear as negatives have some positives–though whether those positives outweigh the negatives is a subject for debate. Or we need to consider a completely different system altogether with consideration for what our modern needs and ability to implement can grant us.
Starting with our current system, besides the whole Great Compromise stuff, there is a certain wisdom to balancing the needs of the individual against the state. One of the great concerns of the founders, besides getting everyone to agree on the system, was insulating against tyranny of the majority. The only really way to prevent that is to give some smaller populations over-representation and some larger ones under-representation. Today, the Senate serves to do just this, perhaps to too large of an extent, using the contrast of California and Wyoming as the obvious example. Unfortunately, I don’t really see a great way of addressing that disparity without either combining/breaking-up states or trashing the whole system. OTOH, I feel like the whole point of the Senate is misused. The House should be focused primarily on matters of concern of the people, as they more directly represent the people. Consider that, originally, Senators were appointed by the state governments, they’re intended to represent the interests of the States over the people, which is why it makes sense that they were granted the duties they have, like judicial consent.
At a more fundamental level, though, I think the single representative per district and winner-take-all approach is really what kills the system. Some things we can do today are more complex voting systems, things like instant run-offs, single transferable voting, and proportional voting. So, here’s a few thoughts about ways to approach making some changes to the system without completely scrapping the ideas that they’re based on, as if we’re going to do that, I’d do something fundamentally different.
For the House, it’s no longer held to 435, it’s just a percentage (perhaps rounded to the nearest 0.1%, or maybe 0.2% to keep the numbers fairly close at 500) based on census data. Further, these voters are no longer assigned to individual districts but to super districts such that each district would have, say, 3-5 total representatives voted on based on a system like STV. So, based on this, California might get 53 reps, so they’d get 11 districts, 9 with 5 reps, 2 with 4, and these would be drawn by computer with the contingent to minimize the total border length (state lines counting for zero), and minimizing individual border lengths (state lines counting equal) and with all districts having representative proportional to their total reps (so, in this example, distrcts 10 and 11 would be 80% the size of the rest). This fixes gerrymandering AND provides for more balanced representation, so a district might go 3-2 for one party, 4-1 if it’s really overwhelming, or even 2-2-1 if there’s a strong Libertarian, Green, or some other party or independent candidate.
And for the Senate, I’d do it similarly, expect each state either gets exactly 2% or maybe with a slight adjustment (but not complete) for population and then each state is it’s own super district with, however many senators (3-5) is appropriate.
Another reform I would do is that, with modern technology, there’s no need to have all the reps and senators in DC all the time. They should have offices in their states/districts so they have greater access and visibility with their constituents and they can have debates and votes via teleconference, so they only all need to be in DC a few times a year for things like the State of the Union or other important votes.
This may not be perfect, but I feel it reasonably addresses most of the grievances made by both parties and independents. It’s no longer a choice of voting for the lesser of two evils, you can vote for who you REALLY want and still have a “back up” if that person doesn’t get enough support, so you’re always choosing the greatest good instead. And if you’re in one of those districts that’s 53-47, so almost half of the people are essentially not represented, you’re much more likely to get at least some representation, which encourages more people to actually vote and candidates will be less polarizing because they’ll find a particular demographic that gets them enough votes and they’ll support them rather than some conglomerated base that doesn’t really fit too many people all that well.