How Would You Fix Government?

You can be as extreme as possible, or as weird. I don't care. But I'll consider one of these smarmy "things are fine just the way they are" answers an automatic fail, and downvote the heck out of it, because you didn't answer the question.

No they are not. I've been to Georgia. The fact is, most of the state is rural and have no patience for democratic politics. They lost in such a way that reflects exactly what the founders feared, a "tyranny of the majority". That is, the founders hated most of all the idea that one or two areas smaller than the whole could rule the rest solely by population. For an extreme example, you would imagine a state that only has one city (we'll name the state Nebraskarkansas to give you an idea of how rural it is). It's an absolutely huge landmass that has a decent population as a whole with alot of farmers, but it has one ten mile domed city that has people literally stacked on top of each other, and they all vote the opposite way. If ten miles can set policy for 500 thousand miles, something is wrong, no matter how many people are there. There is a disconnect between what "me and all my friends packed inside this city" believe and what the larger lands outside who have to grow crops and mine for a living believe. That's why we have precincts and districts, to divide land up by vote. Yet a population advantage screws the whole thing up.
The other problem is slim majority flaw. That you can have 49.999999% feel one way, and 50.000001% feel another, and the first have to do what the second want. So for these two reasons, I'm asking, "Build me a better government."
1. Where a close 49% and 51% majority doesn't leave alot of people very unhappy.
2. Where there isn't a disconnect between two sets of people, who both want to run each other's lives.
3. Possibly where there isn't a vote at all, but some new better system.
--------------------------------------
As a child, I never liked voting. It was probably better than some king being born into power regardless of how fit he was for throne. And it theoretically gave people a choice. But it also meant that one or two people who were the minority opinion always got to be bullied by a gang of people who felt otherwise. On two occasions during my life, I was able to defy a vote, and it actually felt really great. The first was a vote whether to go on a field trip or stay in and watch a movie. I really didn't want to sit through a long boring bus trip, so I made an economic case to the teacher that I could stay and for the price of a teacher's assistant and some popcorn and a rented movie, you could do both. The other was a time where I abstained when there was no abstain vote, and told the teacher that I wanted to take the test alone when they voted Monday or Friday. I'd been getting distracted, and I needed to be able to think (and the students in that class made a racket, scraping their chairs in, and pounding their pens). Since I wasn't voting how other people behaved but for what I wanted, the teacher obliged.

So for my answer, I'd like a system that divided rule by zone. In close states, they split by district or precinct. Whoever that area voted for, that is their president. So like if Vermont voted Bernie Sanders, they get him as their candidate, Texas gets Trump, California gets Hillary/Biden (depending on 2016 or 2020). You should be able to move somewhere that makes you happy rather than being part of a disgruntled 49%.

How would do things? At this point, I'd take a lottery over what happened to Georgia.