99pi/538 did an excellent series on the topic I would recommend.
Chief Justice Roberts' opinion[0] touches on the legislative evolution of the problem. The advent of districts was instituted by congress to encourage proportional representation - and it worked! Gerrymandering is actually an improvement over the older system that led to situations like GP is describing.
Gerrymandering is not the problem, it's a symptom. The problem is first-past-the-post elections. Ranked-choice voting or some other proportional system isn't a panacea either, but it's much better than judges re-drawing political districts instead of elected representatives.
[0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
They're not perfect of course. People in power will always try to adjust the system to benefit them and their supporters (read: The Dictators Handbook). Even in Australia where voting is mandatory, there is a top and bottom of the ballot and only the top is required (if a party doesn't have a certain percentage, that party is moved to the bottom).
Yes, drawing good districts is really hard. Non-partisan redistricting doesn’t solve everything.
But surely it’s a hell of a lot better than allowing whatever political party is in power in a particular year to draw districts to their own advantage, allowing them to rule long after they lose the support of the majority?
You’ll sometimes end up with minority rule in any district based system, but at least it’ll be accidental rather than intentional and self-perpetuating.