Once more, my point is that there are some natural barriers; language, distance, heritage, etc... Creating barriers based on an election is silly.
Well, the protectionism we use for the car industry here isn't natural, but it is useful. The main reason I support dividing the country is because regionalism in America is more prevalent now than it has been in a long while. While the primary divide is urban vs. rural, even urban areas of Texas are quite different in their values compared with urban areas of California, for example.
Federalism was originally a compromise to allow states a lot of power while still having a federal government to bind us together, but since about Woodrow Wilson, the federal government has grown rapidly and has taken a lot of the power of the states away. To have any meaningful amount of power left for the states, we either need to significantly shrink the federal government or split up.
That being said, I don't think either will happen. The feds will continue to grow until state governments are largely irrelevant.
Ok.
Walk me through the division. How do you divide the nation?
I think Alaska could easily become its own country. They're the only state with a budget surplus (thanks to oil revenue), and they're geographically removed from the rest of the country anyway.
Hawaii could possibly do the same. Their economy is already similar to that of many other small island nations, and I don't think the adjustment would be too much, considering that they are one of the wealthier states already.
As for the remaining 48, you could probably divide things up by the following regions:
1) West Coast Collective: California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. California is large enough to be its own country, but Oregon and Washington are politically similar enough to be compatible members of their nation. Nevada is more of a swing state, but it's been trending blue for a while.
2) Texas Interior: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. This would be a somewhat diverse nation politically, but economically, these states have more in common than their political affiliations would suggest. You'd still have debates over much of policy, but the range of debate would be narrower.
3) Northeast Nation: Maine through Virginia. West Virginia and Virginia would be kind of the oddballs of the group, but they aren't as far apart culturally from the Northeast as places like Texas or Mississippi.
4) Upper Midwest: Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This largely Rust Belt nation would have some interesting policy debates of their own, but since a lot of these states are swing states, the end results would probably be pretty moderate.
5) Southeast Syndicate: North Carolina to Florida to Arkansas. These 9 states would be largely the same politically and culturally, with a few unique local cultures (particularly in Florida and Louisiana).
6) Northwest Interior: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. This would be the smallest nation in population. Policy and economy would largely center around oil, gas, and agriculture.