comment: >
  
  I'm gonna say the semi-boomer thing of "in-person collaboration is important" because that's still how my industry still works. But there are very likely models and technologies that can make a "virtual Capitol" workable, and also less of a security risk.
context: Part of the issue is some states simply aren’t competitive outside of hyper concentrated areas. You’d have to go out of your way to create a Republican seat in MA or a Democratic seat in ID. It’s a little easier to imagine Dem seats in red states because so many of them crack deep blue cities (looking at you TN & TX) that left in their own homogenous districts would be unwinnable for Republicans—indeed, their current majority is basically built off of this—than it is more GOP seats in blue ones (many have non-partisan redistricting, although you could argue for IL being worth a couple of red seats). It would make a mockery of the principles people say they want; compact lines that respect municipal & county boundaries and when necessary to split them for population requirements to do so in a way that reflects communities of interest.
  Now what you might be able to argue for would be a plan where the median seat was required to match the statewide partisan lean (perhaps with a secondary requirement that the average across all seats couldn’t deviate by more than…2 points?) The exact formula of what to include and how to weight it would be the subject of a lot of self interested wrangling, but theoretically, a playing field where, for example, Ohio’s 8th seat of 15 was R+7ish or Wisconsin’s 4th and 5th seat of 8 had to average to D+0.5 and only half the seats could be redder or bluer would leave the House very reactive to the electorate. 
  You’d still have very safe seats on both ends, but under this scenario, instead of 18 Biden won GOP held districts, you might have 40. The careful observer will note that’s a lot larger that the 20 recalcitrant holdouts denying the speakership to McCarthy at present, and would also have given the GOP a thundering majority whereby the Freedom Caucus could stomp its feet all they wanted and it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. >
  
  To your point...In the NC case a few years ago, the republicans essentially argued that democrats didn't have a gerrymandering problem, they have a geography problem. When the state legislature drew new compact districts, it created an imbalance since the metro areas leaned so heavily democrat, but were geographically compact. >
  
  That's only really an issue because we have an arbitrary cap (538) on the number of congressional representatives, so you end up in situations where in deep blue areas you might have 1 congressional representative representing >1 million people and in rural areas you have 1 rep representing <500,000 people. >
  
  Do you mean between states? Within a state districts are required to be as  close to even population as possible >
  
  It was capped because even 435 was becoming too cumbersome >
  
  I think for the good of the republic, we're probably going to have to revisit what is "too cumbersome" in that regard. >
  
  Partying like it's 1929.
  I still maintain that you could kill like three or four birds with one stone if you just modernized the Capitol building to not just enable, but make standard "Work from Home (District)".
  
  Far better for the environment. (Frequent air-travel sucks.)    
  Better for the constituents.  
  Better for the congress-critters.  
  Completely invalidates the problem of congressional size.  
  
  Hell, under that system you could theoretically go back to the 1 seat per 30-45k people stipulated in the constitution, though I admit it would be more than a little weird having ~7000 congress members... that's probably just because I'm old and used to being represented by so few. I'm sure in a decade or two people would wonder how the hell we ever managed the way it is now.
  ...which leads to the potential 5th point (if it WERE increased to that level).
  
  Would probably reduce the effect of big money on congress significantly.   
  
  There were like 10 house races last year that ran north of $15M. If you increase the seats by a factor of 10-20 EITHER you're gonna have to swing FAR more money out of the current donor pool (unlikely), massively expand the size of your donor pool (even less likely), or more realistically the price of the majority of campaigns is gonna fall into a level (~50-100k?) that's "reasonable" (for a certain level of reasonable) for... just about anyone with a little grass-roots support in their teeny tiny little district and like... a decent job or something they can borrow against from the bank?