You seem to be referring to imbalances of single-seat districts, that's not quite the same (purposeful gerrymandering aside) as deliberate disenfranchising of certain groups of voters. Districts can get redrawn to make them more fair, and multi-seat systems exist that achieve better proportionality, but that has nothing to do with the arcane BS that is US electorate system.
Yes, surely my mentality is more focused on European electoral disproportions, where the difference in the weight of votes between regions is sometimes 1 to 0.9 or at most 1 to 0.5.
I hope I am not again saying something you are not saying, but it looks a bit like "since Europe is not perfect, we are ok" or "it could be worse". I am certainly not here to defend the different European systems, although I would like to see the Swiss system in the US for a couple of years, just for the laughs of the popular initiatives that would come out. I like one rep per districts, because you have someone, with a name, that can answer for what he or she has done individually and a small district is sufficiently granular IMO.
There are many electoral systems, but honestly so many people ignored is kind of a record. It is more evident in the senate, but also state by state.
Take Texas, which has not voted Dems since... Carter apparently. The real result in 2020 is 53% Reps, 44% Dems. All mayor cities are Dems. You would need to ask why the vote of nearly 45% of the people is valued at zero. That does not look like representing the will of the people correctly, I mean, 45% is nearly half.
You certainly have many options, even if at least you could assign representatives proportionally or using D'Hont you would be getting a significant improvement.