Can you elaborate on what guidelines they were given? There is one surprising bias you have to be aware of. It seems if we have a state that is let's say 35% d

Can you elaborate on what guidelines they were given? There is one surprising bias you have to be aware of. It seems if we have a state that is let's say 35% democrat, 30% republican, 20% libertarian, and 15% green then it would seem to be most fair for districts to have a similar composition. But this would be disastrous as in our district driven first past the post system this would mean that the party with 35% of the public support would end up receiving 100% of the congressional seats!! Of course the desired result should be one proportional to the makeup of a state. And this is done most naturally by a system where individuals vote for a party (or individual running as a one man party) at a state level with seats distributed according to the total vote. If a state has 10 seats then 10% of the vote guarantees at least one seat. The parties then distribute their representatives to districts weighted on the vote. E.g. a district that voted for 80% democrat would be prioritized to receive a democrat representative more than one that voted 20% democrat. The 'problem' is that if you do the above all the sudden you'd have socialists, libertarians, pirate party guys, and all other sorts with some minority representation in congress - and we can't have that can we? /s if that wasn't clear. But really, the powers that be would never agree to a system that would meaningfully undermine the establishment and so with that condition, "I Cut You Choose" does seem to be the most reasonable and realistic possibility for fair outcomes. --- More generally here, I think systems that assume bad behavior and find solutions that acceptably in spite of that tend to be vastly better than ones that assume good behavior and result in collapse when undermined. It's basically just finding game theory optimal solutions to problems.