They can call in the military for the protection of their rights.

So ultimately-the system is simple

EVERYBODY IS PITIED AGAINST EVERYBODY ELSE

and

If there is a quarrel amongst the communities they take it to the Triumvirate to be decided by either a 2 to 1 vote or by a direct referendum.

Quite a complicated system indeed, but nevertheless, unique!

No place on the current political spectrum.

Indeed, because the result will be dependent on the population.
Ok, thats nice, guess i wouldnt mind this kind of system in a city state...
_yes i read all of it_
However i see a load of problems with this on a larger scale...

However, what about making every nation a confederation of city states run by such organizations on a local scale.

I think something like a modern reincarnation of the Greek -polis models.

Have you read the history of the ancient Greek?

I mean I think a triumvirate can handle a million people or so on an enclosed territory.

That's basically a modern mega polis.

Then, the mega polices combine into a nation, and the nations can combine into an even larger scale organizations.

Than each of these organizations can elect representatives for Truimvirates on their own and thus the system can be scaled up, even to a world level.

It would be a triumvirates of triumvirates then, each controlling their respective regions and the economy, the military or the judiciary of the said land.

As I told you,

There is no system like this proposed ANYWHERE as far as I can see it.

This is why I say it doesn't fit into any political models.

Am I right?

Because it isnt really ideoligical in nature, but rather a form of government. It would be a big blob on the ideological spectrum, touching all but the outer reaches of the spectrum

This is why I'm telling you there is still no spectrum conceived where I can fit in.

Am I right?

Well that depends on what sort of things you would vote for within your form of government.

If you did not vote within this government of yours, that would make you apolitical, aka defined by the current status, mostly represented by the dead centre spot in the compass

If you vote for strong borders that would put you further up the statist axis...

If you vote for more social safety nets that would make you more economically socialist.

.
From what i can tell by this conversation alone, you have yet to think over what you would actually do once you have your preferred structure of governance.
That is what would place you as an individual on the political compass.

That's the thing @Fuksias it depends on CIRCUMSTANCES!

I do not represent a universal left or right.

I am no socialist, neither am I capitalist or a fervour nationalist, not in the sense you know.

I think this ultimately best political configuration for any people and anytime ultimately CHANGES constantly.

Can you understand me?

.
Another thing to humor your mind with would be trying to overthrow your own government. _make yourself an effective monarch within the system by _any_ means.

In some times and for some circumstances the political right tradition and strong government is better.

In others-it is the left, the equality amongst the people and inclusiveness.

Compasses have to be thought of as baselines. You get absolutely nowhere if you think of them as relativistic

There is no constant best and there is no constant worse.

Ofc not every situation needs the same response

The system is designed so that it can encompass this change no matter whether it is to the left, or to the right.

And there is a safeguard against oligarchies and monarchies in the system.