I'd say the core problem goes deeper than that, and getting rid of gerrymandering only solves part of it. Let's say you have parties representing 10%, 20%, 30%

I'd say the core problem goes deeper than that, and getting rid of gerrymandering only solves part of it. Let's say you have parties representing 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of the population respectively. Ideally, you'd like the politicians elected in the same proportions. In reality if the populations are dispersed evenly, then when you divide up the populations into seats and elect one representative from each seat you are going to end up with some mix of the 30% and 40% making up 100% of the parliament. If the distribution is perfectly even and you are using FPP then the entire parliament will all be from the 40% - which is more of a dictatorship by the 40% than a democracy. Gerrymandering, and a "fairer" voting system like instant runoff might alter the break up of the 30% and 40%, but either way the 10% doesn't get a seat. To have any say at all they have to vote for one of the 30% or 40%. In other words you end up with a 2 party system, which is of course what we do have. Neither getting rid of gerrymandering nor using a better voting system actually solve the problem, if the problem is ensuring parliament reflects the voting population. Yet we see those two things proposed over and over again here on HN and elsewhere. The solution is what the other posters in this sub-thread mention. Germany and NZ use it. To me, it looks to have worked very well for them. But getting there is hard as the incumbent 2 parties will combine to oppose it. The change always makes them lose seats to the minorities.