I am not the guy you talked to there but I don't even comprehend how anyone could think that a system that represents voters evenly is somehow unfairer than a system where the loser can actually win and that over the course of hundreds of years results in extremism. Also, why do Americans always write of people like Jefferson as if they were some sort of infallible political masterminds? The US was very progressive in its day but all this excessive patriotism and glorification of the founding fathers has left the country at a full stop in so many ways.
If you want to learn about a good system, have a look at the German one. Federal elections basically give you two votes, one for a local representative where the winner basically takes all and one for a party where representatives are chosen by the party but the number of representatives is split up evenly. This allows local communities (such as rural areas) and cities to both send representatives and opens up the system to new parties. The election this summer will with all likeliness result in 6 parties being voted into power which can form a coalition as they please to get their collective representative count over 50%. One of those parties is technically two parties so the total is 7, as the very conservative state of Bavaria has its own Christian-conversative party that is basically bound to Merkel's German conservative party for the rest of the country, which is one example of how the coalition system works.
More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Voting_system
CGP Grey also made a video on this system though it's based off of New Zealand, it's essentially the same process though: