The universal rule of single member districts is relatively recent, and it was a blunt (though effective) tool to deal with the threat of a form of super-gerrymandering by which states would assign some or all of their representatives to state-wide at-large seats so that the statewide majority would elect them, as a means of preventing the existence of majority-black districts in majority-rule states.
Multimember districts with a proportional (even candidate-centered, like STV) electoral system rather than plurality or majority-runoff deals with both that problem and the problem with single-member FPTP districts.
Just like congressional districts that cover the entire state (ie. WY, ND, SD, etc.), there's no reason that multiple representatives can't all represent the entire state.
They can cover the entire state's interest through compromises as oppose to infighting for district vs. district within a state.
You could assign representatives to cover the area where they were most popular.
In fact, given modern technology, you could easily draw the boundaries after the election. If you did, I bet they'd look a lot more "natural" than the results of current GOP gerrymandering.
