I think I've answered this before
Ray From Cleveland CrusaderFrank
1. Texas doesnt have to split into 5 states but can organize 5 internal administrations for political party precincts and members to manage their own policies and tax breaks/credits to pay for terms conditions and beliefs they support
2. My Christian Anarchist and Libertarian friends posted a map of organizing the US as Five Regional districts connecting neighboring states.
3. We can organize people and state/national groups by party, so taxation can be separated where we do not agree ideologically.
This is similar to Catholics dividing from Protestants, and Lutherans from Baptists, which does not require dividing the govt. It means recognizing political beliefs like religious organizations separate from govt so people can fund or defund as they believe and not violate the First Amendment or Public Accommodations by imposing their agenda on the rest of the nation or forcing this on taxpayers which churches are not allowed to do.
We treat party agenda equally as any other religious organization, where each group is equally empowered and responsibly for enforcing and funding its own policies for its own members by consent, and where all groups agree on public policy (that is neutral of religious or political bias in belief) then that can be implemented on national, state or district levels by consent of supporting taxpayers while still allowing other groups alternatives where we disagree on ideology. Similar to Catholic and Lutheran church organizations having separate conferences and administrations for their own schools or charity hospitals without imposing one policy on everyone else.
We may need to host rotating 2 year conferences similar to party conventions to moderate between people and parties, and between parties and states to establish both agreements on common policy and separate policies where groups do not agree to fund the same mandates.
Since federal elections are every 4 years, then midway every 2 years we could have regional Constitutional Conventions for people to meet with parties to address reforms, document points of objection and agreement on solutions or alternatives, then present these statements and findings to elected leaders to implement through govt.
Just electing leaders does not give them unchecked license to pass or rule on any policy they believe in.
We need a more conducive system of communicating between people, parties and media what people consent or do not consent to, before presenting joint statements and positions (and better crafted legislative proposals and reforms) to govt leaders and officials in order to represent the public fully without imposing bias in beliefs that discriminate against or disparage rights of citizens and taxpayers excluded from equal representation in democratic process and policy.