Better representation in Congress

From the Maryland Public Policy Institute:

The Framers, in contrast, were wise and crafted American government so that a segment of the public would find it difficult to run political roughshod over another. Hence today’s stalemates and shutdowns, filibusters and partisan animosity, and Tea Parties and Occupy movements. Politicians and commentators lament this 'gridlock,' but in a diverse country, gridlock is good.

While gridlock is not ideal, it could be a reflection of a better representation of districts by their elected officials. Let us not be too quick to condemn Congress. It is possible that the current political gridlock is a sign of a more effective representation of constituents' needs and issues. More legislation is not necessarily a sign of progress. Congress members should be willing to fight for what their constituents want rather than follow every word of the party leaders. Gridlock can persist, considering that Congressmen have to fight for different districts, and Americans want different issues represented. We cannot rush to a conclusion that Congress in stalemate is a less able Congress. However, there is undeniable polarization of congressional districts due to repeated gerrymandering. This may be the real problem.

Constituents are changing. Unnatural geometric shapes are created to define congressional districts resulting in more polarized representations in Washington. California's redistricting is now controlled by an independent commission to prevent or minimize gerrymandering. However, in many other states, redistricting still remains a political opportunity to favor one or the other party. The practice of gerrymandering persists.

Should all states require redistricting to be controlled by nonpartisan, independent commission? What else may explain the increased polarization of elected officials and their constituents?