Stole the next paragraph from the Atlantic:
“For the U.S. House, where multimember districts would be allowed by the Constitution (but are banned by statute), switching to proportional representation would most directly break the two-party hegemony. Rather than splitting, for example, Arizona into nine separate congressional districts, all Arizonans could vote in the same statewide, multiparty election. Parties would win seats in direct proportion to their statewide vote share, so a party that gets a third of the votes in Arizona would get three of nine seats in Congress. Each party would select its candidates, instead of hosting primaries. Just as in our current system, general-election voters would choose their preferred candidate. The difference is that those ballots would also count toward the total vote share for that candidate’s party. A party that gets three seats would send its three most popular candidates to Congress. Giving political parties the ability to vet and choose their own nominees strengthens the parties’ ability to give voters clear choices.”
The premise is that confrontational parties cannot evolve into “neutral” political opinion. In some ways related to rank voting, in this process any and all parties could vote for the same candidate regardless of district; this approach would greatly weaken the advantage gained through gerrymandering.
A new thought about a well-rooted problem in our government. Offered for your cogitation.