**Single member districts are pretty unrepresentative**

You are right to question the value of holding several single-member, [First-past-the-post](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) elections. FPTP essentially throws away all votes that are not for the winner. Additionally, it throws away excess votes received by the winner. Throwing away all these votes can result in a set of representatives, which does not reflect the desires of the electorate. The Gerrymanderer exploits this mechanic to achieve their political goals.

In this way, gerrymandering is not a distortion of a well designed system. It is an intentional exacerbation of the problems inherent in a deeply flawed voting system.

**Why use districts at all?**

There is value in having local representatives who are aware of local concerns, and are accessible to their constituents.

Due to the math of population distribution, at-large elections favor candidates in population centers. This can lead to under-representation of rural voters. Using districts helps address this concern.

**Is there a better way?**

A means of balancing some of these issues is to use fewer, larger, multi-member districts. These ensure better local representation, while reducing the number of wasted votes that results from single-member districts. There are a number of ways to perform a multi-member election. One that is fairly popular is [Single-Transferable-Vote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote).