This article seems to assume that our current system is an imperfect attempt at populist democracy and that somehow we just got the numbers wrong. The history and current opposition is still that populist democracy is not good for rural politics. The argument is simple, most people live in dense cities, and if you counted votes evenly then nobody would ever care what country-folk care about at any level of government.

If the article is meant to be a persuasive essay then it may be good to at least acknowledge that dissent exists, particularly when that dissenting opinion designed or heavily influenced the current system.

"the commission says that its main objective was to give Latinos and Native Americans the ability to elect representatives of their choice"

even the article acknowledges the partisan nature of districting, but instead of recognizing that openly the author chooses to begin with the thesis "PARTISAN gerrymandering is an offense to democracy." Partisan gerrymandering was a founding principle of our democracy. By definition, as long as districts exist in elections, they will be partisan.