Different Governmental Organizations.

The ideal Government should have a number of different organizations to facilitate checks and balances.

Let's take a step back first. The reason why checks and balances are important, is because democracy is not about "majority wins". The ideal government is for everybody, not just the majority. The checks and balances are put in place in order to protect the rights of the minority.

At present there are two popular ways to organize representation:
a. Geography.
b. Political orientation.

In order to develop government further, we shouldn't be satisfied with the present popular ways of dividing representation.

Really, there are two systems I'm talking about.

a. The central governmental body , (such as parliament, or congress etc.) consists of representatives organized by some system(s).

b. The lower-level governments are divided up by some system. (usually based on location).

It should be no secret that the reason I think so much about this stuff is my frustration with the present Israeli system.

On that note, I'd like to suggest some different ways they could organize local governments and parliament.

Lets start with local governments:
1. They(we? you?) could divide the land up into pieces that have the same area. This would ensure relative fairness even if the population density changes.

2. It could be divided up into pieces that have equal numbers of residents at present.

3. It could be divided up into pieces that have equal economic value. I like this one, because its different.

4. dunno.

I want to describe the two extremes that you can go in with a parliament system based on political sentiment and location.

One one hand, you have a system that people vote for representatives that match their own political sentiments. The benefit of this system is that it gives a scattered minority voice in the government. The problem is that the organization of political parties might result in many people not finding accurate representation for all of their sentiments. Because the party only caters to its own, it doesn't feel the need for general appeal, making the parties and representatives stubborn, violent and offensive.

On the other hand, you have a system by which every location has one representative. The benefits of this system are that it promotes stability by emphasizing the center, and de-emphasizing the extreme. Another benefit, is that any candidate must strive for general appeal in order to win the election, promoting political correctness, open debate and intelligent, thought out compromises.

A mix of these two systems would happen if each locality would have more than one representative, like in the US congress.

I think the ideal system would have some sort of mix or combination of the two extremes. I wonder how a system with 3 bodies (of 100 reprisentatives ) could work:

a. One body of 100 people organized by political party.
b. One body 100 people, each one from 100 different geographic divisions, each one being the most popular in his division.
c. One body of 100 people, 10 from each of 10 different geographic divisions, being the top 10 in their division..

Really, the party voting system is pretty bad. I think it should be done away with entirely. Can any body point out even one benefit of that system? Let's nix it.

a. One body of 100 people, being the most popular 100 in the nation.
b. One body 100 people, each one from 100 different geographic divisions
c. One body of 100 people, 10 from each of 10 different geographic divisions, being the top 10 in their division.