The problem I see here is that it declares something is "fair" if it reflects the voting tendencies as a whole. But that's not the point of districts. The points of districts is that different areas of the state get people who are elected by that group as their representative to represent their interests. That may or may not reflect the overall state population's feelings, but the point isn't to try to do it according to the state's general thoughts.
For an example, let's suppose that a state is fairly uniformly 52% Democrat 48% Republican. Maps drawn in a "normal", non-gerrymandering fashion would typically result in 100% of the races going to Democrats. You'd have to actually gerrymand in order to try to make the seats go in a manner similar to 52%/48%.
The goal of districts aren't to create proportional representation to begin with. I don't think, therefore, that one can say it's "unfair" or "gerrymandered" simply because the percentages of seats doesn't match up with the percentage of votes by the population (gerrymandering gives that result, of course, but again non-gerrymandered maps can do that too).
If the goal is proportional representation then just drop districts entirely and have people get elected by proportional representation.