Not to mention that it ignores the motives for Gerrymandering. Politicians surely know that Gerrymandered districts are 'bad', if a logical electoral system is your priority.
Politicians Gerrmander because they see an advantage in it, and they don't have compunctions against it.
I suspect good, non-Gerrymandered districts could easily be generated using traditional means as well. But the officials in charge have signalled they aren't interested.
That's an understatement. Here in California, politicians reacted to the idea with an incandescent, frothing-at-the-mouth rage peppered with (political) death-threates aimed at anyone who dared to make an issue of the issue. But thanks to the direct-initative process, they didn't have to power to actually block it. The direct initiative system has been the source of a lot of grief, and frankly, it has a lot to answer for. But in this case, it proved to be worth its weight in gold. Indeed, it may be the thing that leads to the end of gerrymandering throughout America.
Until very recently, California was polarized even more sharply than Washington DC, and seats were filled with ideological firebrands backed by primary voters who would punish "compromise". This chronic disunity meant we unable to use the power of our size effectively. But now that we're steadily replacing those folks with people who can safely operate together, our reps can safely ignore their parties to vote as a uniform block that only cares about itself. Coming from a state as big as California, that represents a major a threat. In another election cycle or two, California will have enough unity to become the swing vote on anything. And yes, you can expect it to use this power ruthlessly. Nothing will move unless there's something in it for California, and given the size and diversity of the state, it'll be a rare issue that passes without California extracting some major concession from the other States. It'll be all take and no give, all the time, on everything.
Power this substantial and unchecked will be deeply resented and increasingly abused. For other big states, the only way to stop the pain will be to start operating the same way themselves. Florida is well on its way to ending gerrymandering. Governor Cuomo is starting to make an issue of it in New York. If they can start operating as post-partisan blocks, they can work together to neutralize California's power. Once Texas and Illinois get into the game (in that order, I suspect), the political dynamic will be Big States vs. Small States Further Disadvantaged By Intractable Partisan Rifts. Applying pressure of this magnitude to what will be perennial losers should cause the whole sordid institution to collapse entirely, subordinating politicians to people rather than parties in all 50 States. In retrospect, the madness we're living through now will look a lot like the crime-ridden hell scape of New York City in the 70's, as seen from the 90's on.
There is nothing easy about drawing districts...what fundamental rule is there that says it is better for my household to be grouped with the politically-polar-opposite area south of me rather than the more politically similar group east of me? Is it bad if each district contains demographically homogenous groups that vote as a bloc? How else to introduce diversity than by organizing districts differently than traditional neighborhood boundaries?
Obviously, there are some who will attempt to game the system? But one candidate's gerrymander is another's fair apportionment...to dismiss it all as a big conspiracy controlled by indefeatable evil interests is to practice the worst kind of intellectual ambivalence.
Politicians Gerrmander because they see an advantage in it, and they don't have compunctions against it.
I suspect good, non-Gerrymandered districts could easily be generated using traditional means as well. But the officials in charge have signalled they aren't interested.