If the US had a vote to split into Red America and Blue America, how would you vote?

[DanTex]

This is a serious question -- the Scottish Independence vote got me thinking.

Obviously, this isn't going to happen, and there are a lot of details like which states are part of which America and so on which I don't have answers for. And, economically, splitting the country in half would be pretty disruptive.

On the other hand, it's not totally implausible. The new Americas would have close relations, it would be easy to cross the borders, it would be kind of like the US and Canada.

I honestly don't know how I'd vote, but if there were a viable plan to split in two, I'd at the very least have to seriously consider it. I'm not much of a nationalist or an American exceptionalist, and I'm pretty sick of right-wingers having so much influence on policy. I live in NY, so I'd be safely in Blue America, and I think that without being weighed down by red state Republicans, "Blue America" could actually accomplish some remarkable things.

On edit: Here's a map of red-blue based on the last four presidential elections, to get an idea of which state would go where:

[derby378]

1. Didn't this happen once before?

The results the first time around were disastrous - Antietam, Gettysburg, Atlanta, Petersburg, etc.

[DanTex]

2. I'm talking about a vote, not a civil war.

You know, in the same way that the Scottish vote for independence is different from a war of independence.

[el_bryanto]

3. I wonder how much people's reactions to this will be based on where they live

As I live in a swing state that leans Red . . . I guess I'm opposed to this.

Bryant

[DanTex]

4. Probably a lot.

I used to live in Texas. If I were still there, I would probably vote no, although I might have voted yes with the intention of moving to a blue state, which I did anyway.

You know, the Scottish vote has a similar dimension to it, in that if Scotland declares independence, the rest of the UK becomes more conservative. Obviously not to the same degree, but enough that some liberal English people are pleading the Scots not to abandon them.

[el_bryanto]

11. So you didn't really like anybody in Texas? You thought they were all assholes? nt

[DanTex]

13. Umm, what? No.

[el_bryanto]

14. But you don't want to be in the same country as them? nt

[DanTex]

20. Nothing personal, it's based on the policies that could be passed if not

for the influence of red state conservatives.

[el_bryanto]

25. Still - doesn't seem very neighborly. nt

[heaven05]

70. a lot are

period.

[el_bryanto]

77. Yes - and if there's one thing New York is known for - it's Niceness. nt

[heaven05]

82. no it's not

a lot of assholes there also. In fact, this country is full of the ignorance and stupidity that assholes perpetrate. Full of them. Just go to Discussionist, Point proven.

[el_bryanto]

83. So then we should stick together? or balkanize? nt

[heaven05]

135. we're already 'balkanized"

politically, racially, sexually.

[el_bryanto]

141. I don't think you know what the term balkanization refers to.

While we are all different (and you forgot religiously and economically), we are all part of the same nation. Balkanization, as I understand it, refers to breaking the nation up into many smaller nations.

Bryant

[heaven05]

148. well, bryant

in name only are we one nation. Culturally we are many nations and races and act like it. It's not 'official' yet, but with the polarization currently at work amongst the people in this country, religiously, economically, racially, politically, It's just a matter of time unless we get our shit together and start respecting each other and addressing the disparities tearing at the already worn fabric of american culture. I know what it meant and we're heading that way, and truthfully, I give a damn less. We only have racism, stupidity and ignorance in our people to blame.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

150. Harper's Magazine had an article in 1988 about "The Balkanization of America".

Very prescient.

[heaven05]

153. thank you

I will check it out. The last 6 years has shown me just how polarized this country is along many cultural lines. The cracks are getting deeper and wider every day. Just my take.

[HERVEPA]

87. If you're tring to be sarcatic, you're just flat out wrong.

New Yorkers are very nice in general.

[el_bryanto]

89. Famous for it.

What's why we talk about the famous New York Hospitality.

Bryant

[HERVEPA]

91. Still can't figure out whether you're being sarcastic.

[el_bryanto]

93. More Sarcastic about the whole idea.

I like all sorts of Americans - southerners, westerners, northerners - I don't want to write off any of them.

But I understand some do.

Bryant

[HERVEPA]

118. OK.

[snooper2]

119. Well, you type angry New Yorker and the videos start piling up on YouTube

LOL

A bit of a routine traffic jam on my little street, becomes something worth filming for a change, when this one guy keeps yelling and cursing like a true New Yorker.

A old man, sort of little person flips out on a young guy playing his trumpet in the village in Manhattan and tells him that he sucks and he's not a real artist.

the argument always happen in union square park,this is the 'Hyde park' of new york,you want to argue with people with some topic,you come to union square,that's what new yorker do,but this time we got a british women jump in.i respect these people,i am not try to makes fun with them,for me this is part of the human history,new york city is the biggest 'living theatre' in the world,this is just one of the interesting moment of this living theatre

[stevenleser]

126. There are eight million of us. So yeah, there are more angry, nice, indifferent, etc. NYers

represented on Youtube than people from lots of other places.

[Kalidurga]

156. The little guy was a lot uncomfortable to listen to,

but he could give Simon Cowl a lesson or two.

[Art_from_Ark]

173. One time when I was in New York (Manhattan),

I saw two cars at a stoplight. When the light turned green, the first car didn't go, causing the driver behind him to be stuck at the red light again. The second time the light turned green, the driver in front still didn't go, and the driver behind honked his horn. Instead of going, the driver in front got out of his car, walked over to the other car, and started cursing like a sailor.

[BlueJazz]

176. The trumpet player doesn't suck. He blows and he's atrocious. I don't blame the dude for telling....

...the guy to leave. I wouldn't want to hear that out-of-tune-lousy-tone either.
Sounds like an elephant with his balls caught in a lawn mower.
I love street Musicians but at least be able to hold the instrument correctly and also be able to sound like someone who has had at least one lesson...

[DeadLetterOffice]

184. You do that New York includes way more land and people than just NYC, right?

Some of us New Yorkers in upstate and the Fingerlakes and the Adirondacks and out west are quite hospitable. (I think there are prolly lots of hospitable NYC folks too but I never go there so I have no direct experience.)

[DanTex]

92. Wow. Have you ever been here?

Since you obviously dislike New Yorkers so much, why do you oppose splitting the country in two then?

[el_bryanto]

94. I don't dislike New Yorkeres. I dislike New Yorkers that think my part of the country is shit.

I'm from Florida.

Bryant

[BlindTiresias]

103. So why do you want to be in the same union, then?

Neither side likes each other, and I find even southern leftists to be obnoxious.

[el_bryanto]

104. Some New Yorkers are Assholes. Not all New Yorkers are assholes.

You see the distinction?

Bryant

[BlindTiresias]

106. Which ones are assholes?

The ones that rightfully dislike elements of southern culture and in particular Floridian culture?

[el_bryanto]

107. The ones that want to kick us out of the union.

Hey - that wall street place - you know that's ruining the economy on a regular basis? Where is that again?

Bryant

[BlindTiresias]

108. Lol

yeah because the south sure is a bastion of anti-capitalism.

[el_bryanto]

109. Well yeah - but I'm not trying to kick New York out of the Union.

And Wall Street does considerable damage - the culture of Wall Street is New York Culture.

Actually it's of a piece isn't it? Wall street fucks screw the rest of the country because we don't matter, and you and the other people on this thread that want to kick the south, midwest and west out want to screw the rest of the country because we don't matter.

All of a piece.

Bryant

[BlindTiresias]

111. I'm actually in favor of gradual dissolution

Into 3-5 distinct unions. Wall Street would have a very difficult time performing their usual shenanigans without a large entity like the US to prop up risk. For all we know Wall St could find the new political climate in the Northeastern Union unfavorable and move location to the neo-feudal states of the Southern or Midwestern Union.

it is a pure hypothetical, you see, so what reason is there to treat an entity like Wall St as some permanent fixture? At one point it did not exist, and at some point in the future it will cease to exist.

[cordelia]

143. So, you hate the South in general? Or do you like Southern conservatives?

And I was asked upthread how the OP could be described as divisive.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. One thing that made the Scottish vote possible ...

is Scotland is contiguous; whereas, red and blue in the U.S. is not.

[FSogol]

18. And it was a separate country in the past. The US was not. n/t

[tkmorris]

128. Tell that to Texas

[FSogol]

131. Does Texas want to rejoin Mexico?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

151. I can show you my land grant signed by Anson Jones.

We think we're another country because we used to be another country.

[ieoeja]

159. But only Texans. While folks from Vermont, Hawaii and California/Nevada don't.

You're not the only state that used to be another country.

[DanTex]

23. Right, that's one reason it will probably never happen in the US.

Actually, I don't think the geographic contiguity is the biggest impediment at all. The main reason it won't happen is because Americans simply don't want it to happen.

[RKP5637]

79. Yes, that is definitely a show stopper for the US IMO. n/t

[HereSince1628]

27. I'm afraid WI would go red although it's presented as blue on that map.

State politics and national politics here bring out different proportions of voters.

I can imagine the teahadists being very ramped up to leave the union in favor of achieving states' rights solutions.

I fear that would quickly end in feudal rule by big money.

[merrily]

160. I live in Massachusetts and am wondering why

155 people. including me, replied to a thread about something that is never going to happen, based on a map that is imaginary.

[BlindTiresias]

168. Underlying current of discontent with the government.

Nobody feels fulfilled or proud save for the right, everyone is frustrated with the other. It isn't a lasting recipe for a state in my opinion.

[merrily]

170. That's what the right is like when it is proud and fulfilled?

Drawing Hitler mustaches on Obama, wanting to deny people affordable health care, and affordable student loans?

What do they do when they're pissed off?

[BlindTiresias]

193. Yeah why wouldn't they be feeling good?

The country has never been more right wing and they have accomplished a near total victory, to the point where you have plenty of rightist dems but not a single left leaning republican. That they are flippant and cruel does not mean they are scared, they are just not magnanimous in victory.

[merrily]

198. I don't know about the pros in the politics business, but I think the

private citizen rightist has no clue that the Democratic Party has gone so far right. I think they buy what they're told, that Dems are about a half step away from turning America socialist.

They believe what they're told. Even most Democrats I know don't get that the Party made a fundamental shift while Bill Clinton was President.

[DeadLetterOffice]

183. Boredom.

I swear to all things good and lovely that 95% of all posts to the internet are done because the poster is bored and/or can't think of anything else to do.

[tblue]

5. I'd vote yes.

I envy the Scots.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. If it could be done democratically, state by state, without bloodshed, yes.

But, that's a mighty big "if".

Disclaimer: I live in a very blue state and if the opposite were true I'd probably vote no or start packing.

[RKP5637]

85. I would do the same. No way would I ever live in a republican hellhole again! n/t

[CJCRANE]

7. Wasn't it Karl Rove who popularized the idea of "red states" and "blue states"

after the 2000 election?

It's amazing how quickly the idea entered the political lexicon.

[DanTex]

9. According to Wikipedia, the terms were coined by Tim Russert in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

[Blue_Adept]

8. All for it

I've always sort of envisioned New England, New York and a few mid-atlantic states breaking away from the craziness.

[Coventina]

10. I'd vote "no" if for no other reason than I live in a red state.

I don't want to be abandoned by the blues to my fate!

[Chan790]

21. Assume a sort of Schengen Area agreement.

You can live and work where-ever in the former US you want. The large-scale negation of conservatism would make the North bloom and we'd be happy to have you. Come to the liberal paradise of CT...you don't even need to wait for an independence vote, we're already open for business.

[Coventina]

28. Well....I just landed a tenure-track faculty position where I am...are we assuming I'd get the same?

'Cuz that's a pretty big promise.

Although (thinking this through a little bit), "tenure" would probably be abolished under a "red state utopia" (heck, they might do away with higher education altogether!) so maybe I'd be better off taking my chances in CT!

[DanTex]

43. Yeah, if this happens, I wouldn't envy professors stuck in red state faculty positions.

And, naturally, blue state positions would instantly become a lot more difficult to come by.

On the bright side, though, if you did get a blue state position, there would be a lot more funding available.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Congrats ...

in what academic area?

One of the great things about working (in a non-academic area) at a College/University, is being surrounded by some really, really smart people ... there is always something fascinating going on ... one of the draw backs of working (in a non-academic area) at a College/University, is being surrounded by some really, really smart people ... nothing gets done!

[Coventina]

117. Thanks. I know how incredibly lucky I am, and how many qualified people also applied.

And, you are totally right!

I worked in a non-academic job at a college, and felt exactly the same way!

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. Does your institution have the 30-30-30 rule for tenure? ...

30%-research/publishing; 30%-mentoring/service; 30% teaching?

What area are you teaching?

[Coventina]

181. No, it's a community college so it's more like 75% teaching and 25% service

Although there's no hard and fast formula.

I'm on a 5-year probationary process.

Art History.

[1StrongBlackMan]

185. My Mom taught at a Community College ...

so I have a warm spot in my heart for their "special" mission.

Congrats.

[Coventina]

188. Thanks! It's been a long process, and I know how lucky I am!

[1StrongBlackMan]

191. At my Mom's 90th birthday party ...

4 of her former students and 2 children of her former students were in attendance ... each talked about the impact my Mom had on their lives.

How many "major" College/University Professors can make that kind of claim?

[Coventina]

197. Amen! I am proud to be a product of the CC system, and, while I have taught at the university level

that was never my long-term goal.

Congrats to your mother! She sounds like a super person!!!

I hope that if I live to be 90 that I'll have such a tribute! That is evidence of a life well-lived!

[Chan790]

46. I don't know...but we have lots of universities...

and not always the personnel to staff them.

My father for 2 semesters taught introductory math at a local CC and not only did he not have a doctorate in math, he didn't even have a college degree...he was a holdover from the days when you could become an engineer for UTC (Pratt and Whitney) without one, provided you could do the work. UTC created a program where they would provide exceptional employees to teach the skills they needed in their workforce because they weren't getting the kind of highly-skilled, highly-trained, highly-intelligent applicants that one would want building jet engines for fighter jets and passenger planes.

(The man's a math genius and a life-moron.)

[Whiskeytide]

12. People tend to forget...

... that even the reddest states are still full of progressives. I'm in Alabama, and its pretty damn red here. But in 2012, for example, 795,000 Alabamians voted for PBO out of approximately 2,072,000 total votes cast. That's just under 40%. There are no "Red" states. Just states where the majority votes red, and thus the elected leaders are generally idiots who make us all look bad. But we're not, actually, ALL bad.

[DanTex]

16. I'm not denying that at all.

But, it is a fact that the policies of the nation as a whole are dragged significantly to the right by members of congress and electoral votes that come from red states. For example, if there were a "Blue America", there's a good chance there would be single payer there. There would definitely be a higher minimum wage. There would be high speed rail and bridges and highways wouldn't be on the brink of collapse. There wouldn't be creeping anti-abortion laws. Gay marriage would be universally legal. Etc.

[Blaukraut]

26. This n/t

[RKP5637]

90. Agree! The republicans throughout history have dragged the US down with ignorance,

stupidity, selfishness, greed and their brand of crazy religion.

[Dems to Win]

101. +1

There are a lot of good people in Oklahoma, I know. But if I lived in a country that did not include OK, the Congress that makes decisions for me would NOT include Inhofe. I'd like that, a lot.

[Louisiana1976]

158. Right on!

[Art_from_Ark]

186. Just remember that a lot of those "blue" states

have Republican senators and representatives.

James Sensenbrenner, Michelle Bachman, Darrel Issa, Kevin McCarthy, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan, to name a few.

And thanks to California, we got both Nixon and Reagan.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Arizonan, nodding his head, here. eom

[former9thward]

22. There are no "Blue" states either.

In NY and CA millions voted for Romney and McCain.

[Eleanors38]

84. Termites. Your state has them or will have them.

[gordianot]

17. I for one would vote to stay in the Union. If I lost I would be a sore loser.

From that point Lincoln's solution comes to mind. I have a really narrow view on this matter Secession = Treason.

[former9thward]

30. There was no vote in the Civil War.

So Lincoln's solution is irrelevant. Basically you are saying it is treason to have a different opinion than the one you hold. Voluntary secession, agreed to by both sides, is exactly the same as voluntary uniting. No way is it treason.

[gordianot]

64. There was some voting during the Civil War for Secession.

You might want to look that up. During the Civil War there were even Union supporting slave owners who most definitely were not Republican or supporters of Lincoln. I do consider this very much settled as a result of the events in the 1860's and whatever side advocates secession or advocates a vote whether I agree with them politically or not, treasonous. That includes people whom I for the most part agree with politically.

[Chan790]

38. I prefer to think of it as us allowing the South to vote to expel themselves.

They said they will rise again. I say we should let them discover how shitty that will be for them and how much we don't give a f**k.

When the new CSA fails, and it will fail, we prevail over conservative stupidity and can exact the terms by which they rejoin the Union.

[gordianot]

74. Being in a red state I would resist and end up dead, I would have considerable company.

Since I am not African American you and others would consider abandoning the African American community to a New Confederacy? Be prepared for refugees and armed resistance in those States abandoned.

[BlindTiresias]

75. They wouldn't fail

They would become a neo-feudal third world state or states which multinationals would invest in to provide a stable but extremely desperate life for its subjects/citizens. They could likely sustain that state of affairs for generations.

[Iggo]

24. No.

[erpowers]

29. No

My vote would be no. I think the United States of America is better as a single united nation than two separate nations.

[cordelia]

31. Oh, good! Another divisive us vs them post

This isn't helpful. At all.

[DanTex]

33. How is this divisive?

[cordelia]

35. How is it not?

[DanTex]

41. Well, because I don't see how it is. I think if you're making the accusation, you should support it

[cordelia]

63. Read the responses in this thread to your hypothetical question and explain

how it's not divisive.

[DanTex]

65. Again, you're making the accusation, you back it up.

[cordelia]

80. The responses in this thread prove that it's an us vs them type of question.

Just as I, and others, anticipated.

[marions ghost]

32. Your map is ridiculous

The REAL map for how America voted recently ^^^^ Don't give me this North & Pacific vs South & Plains Bullshit

[DanTex]

37. The map is based on state-wide results of presidential elections.

Since states are the organization unit of the country, than any split would occur along state lines.

[marions ghost]

51. The map I posted is also based on election results

but it is a truer picture.

America has no logical lines for splitting the country up, like Scotland & England. Unless you want to move everybody into arbitrary containment zones re. their political affiliation and call them countries.

The map you posted may be convenient for election day, but it's a fail in talking about the true divisions in America. They aren't nearly so clear-cut as you project.

To think that one quarter or half of the country is better than the other is extreme arrogance. Look around....
red is everywhere, including where you are. All we can do right now is try to keep America purple.

[BlindTiresias]

60. We do have arbitrary lines

They are called states and new unions among states. The states are functionally autonomous countries anyway so shifting things around into smaller unions is not that far fetched.

[marions ghost]

68. Look at Scotland's representation in Parliament

--and tell me that we have ANY state that is that far left.

You'd have to split California right down the middle...

No way would current state boundaries work for the "red-blue" split.

The whole thing is silly anyway as the Corporates would never allow it.

The states are bought and sold to the highest bidder.
----------

[BlindTiresias]

73. Well

You don't have to be far left to desire a reformation of the union into unions, actually a bifurcation of ideology in regions would lead to a greater likelihood of division in the future and especially when combined with imperial decline.

[marions ghost]

98. OK

It would destabilize things here even more to divide regionally at the moment. Yes we are in a fragile state in this country and there is a lot of "don't rock the boat" mentality, true. But the American experiment is doomed if we don't come up with something to change course. It's a downhill road we are on. So I sympathize with the fantasy of splitting off, divorcing the parts we don't like. But that's assuming you have a Democratic country in the first place. We don't. We're stuck with trying to kill the cancer within. No chance to just lop it off.

[BlindTiresias]

100. The american experiment is already a failure, though?

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging failure and moving on. Often times this has better results than just doubling down and going down with the ship. Look at the long term outcomes of the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire, for instance. One had a split and ended up flourishing and the other doubled down and was OK for a time, but experienced a slow decline many times worse than the Western Roman Empire's accelerated demise.

[marions ghost]

110. "Acknowledging failure..."

I don't really see enough people willing to do that. They would have to face that what we have been taught is "democracy" is failing in America. We still have vestiges of it, but mostly it's being perverted for individual gain.
Corporate personhood, y'know...

I don't think splitting (or not) geographically is the point. We are already divided, neighbor against neighbor. An insidious form of social control. There is rot at the core, not just an arm or a leg.

Comparisons with the Roman Empire only go so far. I'm not afraid of splitting off where it makes sense, like in Scotland. But in America, Democracy is on life support. We are trending towards failure as an experiment in (what I define) as rule "by and for the people." So trying to politically isolate areas that people think are working doesn't really get to the heart of the problems we have here.

Liberals have no political power in America. We can only vent.

[BlindTiresias]

113. Very few people acknowledge failure

Failure walks up to your door with a sledgehammer and breaks it down.

I just don't get the fantasies of the US always staying together, to be honest, or the country having some miraculous turnaround. It is wishful thinking, in my estimation.

[marions ghost]

122. I don't do too much wishfulness these days

and I don't have fantasies of the US states always staying together as they are today--or a miraculous turnaround.

I just hope we survive the sledgehammer of the failure of the system. We might. Maybe the pieces would fall together in a different way...so failure might end up producing something better....

[BlindTiresias]

127. Turning failure into success?

It is possible, but it requires acknowledging the failure and moving on and most of all requires people to be on roughly the same page. The kind of divisions that exist in the United States and are being amplified by the decline will make that kind of adaptation much more difficult or impossible. You have whole regions dead set against necessary measures like dealing with climate change or adaptation to the automation economy and they won't give up or change their minds because their entire identity since the end of 1865 has been about defiance, imposed hierarchy, and basic contrarianism against their perceived enemies, which then has a counter-escalatory effect on areas like the northeast and west who engage in, admittedly, open bigotry against the other regions.

But there is no wound to heal there because the division is likely permanent, in my opinion very similar to the permanent division that existed in the diadochi, western and eastern roman empires, and the multitude of kingdoms following the collapse of Rome.

[marions ghost]

140. You may be right

but I disagree that we have "whole regions dead set against necessary measures like dealing with climate change"...not everybody in those regions agrees with the prevailing corporate mentality that is currently ruling in cahoots with the lo-info segment. Many are hostages. In several states it's a 50-50 split with the conservatives edging over the line by hook or crook. That leaves many on our side who have no political voice.

I feel about as pessimistic as you do. But I hate to think there's no hope at all. The system is not working for the people, that I am sure of.

[Hugabear]

162. It's not that simple.

If we're talking about a hypothetical breakup, then what would stop states from breaking up in a similar fashion? For example, although Texas is often seen as a very red state, there are pockets that are very progressive. Just like California has some very conservative areas (and there has been a push by some to separate California into several states).

[BlindTiresias]

165. Well

Scotland also has similar pockets of right wing adherents despite a primary tendency towards the left and yet if the measure passes the whole would be separated. You might see some subdivision as right wing pockets near right wing states want to break away, but the state system as a whole provides a pretty clean unit for division and re-organization into new unions.

I think that regional tribalism would instill quiet into these pockets, however, assuming a scenario where most states want to dissolve the larger union anyway. Unfortunately the reverse is also true: Leftists in right wing states would have to shut up or leave in that kind of environment.

[oldandhappy]

133. Thank you

Interesting. More interesting that the state by state break out. What is black?

[marions ghost]

136. Yeah much more informative....

Not sure what black is--maybe sinkholes?

Here's another one:

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. It's a serious question, but obviously it isn't going to happen?

Then it's not a serious question, and the whole red/blue state construct is tired and full of shit.

Reducing states to binary colors is the height of naivete and arrogance.

[DanTex]

39. Yes, a serious question, you know, like "do you support single payer healthcare?"

Something that's also obviously never going to happen either.

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. Single payer will happen. Splitting up the country won't. nt

[DanTex]

48. I doubt it. Still, the point is, I don't see a problem discussing hypotheticals.

[The2ndWheel]

36. Why stop at two?

Sometimes I wonder what actually holds this country together, and outside of inertia, I can't always think of a good reason.

[DanTex]

40. That's a good question.

There are some benefits to unity, both economic and political. But I can also see the US splitting into something like 3-5 different countries rather than just two.

[whathehell]

56. You should read a book titled "the Nine Nations of North America"

It may be a bit dated, but it still holds a lot of interesting observations about the

differences in the various regions of the country.

[Nay]

102. A newer book is "Better Off without 'Em" by Chuck Thompson. It is serious and

hilarious at the same time. He makes a good case for separation. His observations as he traveled around to many different states are spot on.

[whathehell]

180. Interesting..Is his opinion that the US should separate by region or

just the North and South?

[Nay]

189. He has several ideas about how to divide up the states, but basically it is

North and South. And everyone gets a few years to move to the area of preference with no penalties, having to get new citizenship, etc. It's a hoot to read, but he's serious as well.

[whathehell]

194. It sounds good..

I'll definitely be checking it out.

[bravenak]

42. I would vote No, Dan.

I live in the Last Frontier. With the Palins. Not safe. You would need to rescue so many of us, to save us. Imagine what president palin would do to me. Red state refugees would be applying for asylum poste haste. I would be first in line.

[hifiguy]

47. Were it similar to the Scottish vote

I'd likely vote Yes as I live in a pretty blue state.

[pampango]

49. I'd vote NO. We're all in this together. Heck I think we should coordinate more with other countries

I sure don't want our own country to split into two. If the new Blue US and the new Red US did not want to cooperate on anything that would be a huge setback.

Now if we split but did an "EU" and could still travel, live, work and trade wherever we wanted, that might be OK. But how likely is that?

[BlindTiresias]

67. We barely cooperate as it is

With a division into smaller unions things could actually be accomplished again, it is unfortunate that the south and midwest would use this to push things in a bad direction for their people but if a people are self-determined to make a living hell what can you really do about it but wish them well and go in a different direction?

[pampango]

96. Since WWII I think Europeans have believed that our neighbor's problems are our problems.

We may be able to wall off the neighbor's problems for a while but they will come back to haunt us sooner or later. Better to work with them to deal with their problems now than to wait for those problems to metastisize and come back to haunt us big time in the future.

That's why the most liberal countries, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. don't just separate from and wall off the rest of Europe even though the problems are much worse in other countries. Staying engaged with your neighbors does not always work. A Norwegian NGO was just raided in Hungary by the right wing government there for promoting civil society and democratic participation ('liberal values' in the opinion of the Hungarian government).

A hypothetical Red US would be quite large and potentially a disruptive or even dangerous neighbor if its conservative grew unchecked. The European experience is that a right-wing power in your neighborhood is not good for your own long term future.

[BlindTiresias]

99. Potentially

But as we see they are not open to cooperation and have been dead set on a certain cultural path since they were a culture. You can't change cultures, you can only try and adapt to their existence.

The problem with the "just change them and cooperate" position is they have no means of doing so or even good suggestions on how that is to be accomplished aside from passive demographic change, which is not a certainty. A hypothetical split constitutes a hard and fast change for both sides immediately, on the other hand.

[woo me with science]

50. More attempts to divide, divide, divide,

The primary problem is not citizens divided against each other.

No, the primary problem is a One Percent that has co-opted both parties and is systematically propagandizing us to hate each other so that we will never unite against what they are doing to ALL Americans.

We are not a country of half Democratic human beings and half Republican monsters. We are a nation of people being ridiculously oppressed by a tiny minority who have purchased our elections, our government, and our media.

[marions ghost]

53. Thank you!

[BlindTiresias]

72. Sadly

As we see from previous imperial collapses people being grouped into large political organizations with lots of diversity also means that they can be easily pitted against one another. It is only upon division that the elite lose their grasp and are cut down to size and are better able to be managed by the populations at hand.

The notion that the 1% can be defeated and the country remain intact is likely fantasy, in other words. Knocking them down a few pegs will likely entail a division of the US into different unions.

[taught_me_patience]

52. I'd vote for independence for California

We're getting completely fucked over with our two senators vs. Wyoming's two senators.

[Faux pas]

54. Vote to split it.

Let the red states see what life is really like without the feds to fund them. Besides, there's not one red state I'd be interested in visiting anyway lol.

[BlindTiresias]

59. They would just double down

And become neo-feudal states. Sucks, but that is the trajectory they are headed anyway and are determined to bring everyone else along.

[Nay]

105. Yes, they would, and I'm frankly in favor of them getting what they say

they want. It would be easier to stomach neo-feudalism if we could wall it off from those who don't want it, and watch the results from afar. It would, I think, be an instructive lesson for all.

[Faux pas]

138. Yep I don't understand

that way of thinking. I still think we should cut them loose.

[Xithras]

55. I'd vote for California to be independent.

Like all nations, the U.S. will cease to exist some day. No nation lasts forever.

[BlindTiresias]

57. Vote to dissolve the union?

Yes. No hard feelings to leftists stuck in red states, hopefully you could apply for asylum.

[sadoldgirl]

58. Don't kid yourself

The south would vote NO, because they know they are dependent on the money from the "blue" states.

How, btw, would you have a country which includes the West coast and New England?

[BlindTiresias]

62. Not sure

They might vote yes out of pride and self determination.

[Mariana]

172. Their state governments, and their representatives and senators

know how dependent they are. But, I suspect most of the republican voters in those states believe the opposite is true. They think they're carrying the weight. Faux and Limpballs tell them that, so they believe it.

[Liberalynn]

61. I'd vote yes

and make all the Republicans in NY move to another state or surrender their voting rights. I am sorry I know that sounds undemocratic but their policies show their complete lack of reasoning or common sense and in many instances are dangerous to the well being the rest of society. They are particularly threatening to women, African Americans, Hispanics and the LGBT community.

I know not every single Republican is a sexist, racist, bigot but their votes for the ones that are and their silence is enabling.

[Louisiana1976]

163. I'd vote yes for the same reason except I live in Illinois so I'd make the IL Republicans move

or surrender their voting rights. We've a close gubernatorial campaIgn going on now--and there's a real threat that the Rethug candidate, Bruce Rauner, will win. Which would be a major step backward.

[rock]

66. No

The states are in a sense simple "gerrymandered" that way. You could easily split the US into a completely different view. Besides there's always the chance that the repiggies will come to their senses.

[BlindTiresias]

76. Unlikely

The republicans and many democrats are on a trajectory they cannot be deterred from. Ideological movements do not do 180s, they carry on until success, failure, or collapse.

[Drunken Irishman]

69. There is no viable plan to split it into two...not based on Red/Blue, antway.

Look at that map. America is blue states on the left/right and nothing but red in the middle. You can't viably have a country where a portion of its borders don't touch for two thousand miles.

You'd have it break into tinier nations, most likely with the west coach states splitting and then even some splits within that, since there are many conservative regions in these states. If you're in a region with Texas, California, Illinois, Florida or New York, you're pretty set. If you're in a region that doesn't have, either, though, good luck.

[BillZBubb]

114. A constitutional amendment allowing states a secession vote would do it.

[grasswire]

71. I think the split has to be geographically equitable...

....as well as politically determined. Thus, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota must be part of the North and West half. Contiguity is important. I realize there are a lot of feisty people in Idaho and Montana. But I would assume that with any division of the states, there would be a lot of people moving anyway.

[Blaukraut]

78. They get to have Colorado and New Mexico, so it's a fair trade

The 'blue' half would end up looking like an upside down L. Border states like Iowa, South Dakota, Wyoming, Virginia, etc could have votes to decide which new nation they would like to join. DC should be split, with both governments using it as their capital.

[KittyWampus]

81. The reason you can have such stark sections carved out is gerrymandering

[Eleanors38]

86. In the end, everbody retires to Florida!

[TBF]

88. Give it 10 years Texas will be purple too -

demographics shifting quickly with our young latino/latina population. Patience, grasshopper.

[brooklynite]

95. "No"

You're responding to a current condition with a quasi-permanent solution. Forty years ago, the mix of States would be different. Remember when Texas was a Democratic bulwark? Remember when California was reliably Republican? No promise that they wouldn't change again.

[0rganism]

97. Just say NO to Balkanization

For one thing, the granularity on that map SUCKS. Even in the deep red south, there are plenty of urban centers with progressive people and minorities who would be directly injured by such a change.

For a second thing, given a couple decades, you'll see a lot less red as we know it just through demographic shifts and mortality. Why give up on something that'll turn around on its own in time?

[BillZBubb]

112. My devious side thinks a yes vote would be wonderful...

especially if the blue side could form a union with Canada. That way we'd have a land path to connect the amazing east and west coasts of the new country. We would have to accept a lot of refugees fleeing the reich wing states. But a lot of right wingers would want to be with their masters, so it might be a wash on population shift.

It would also be interesting to see what each new country developed in the way of a constitution. The red state constitution would be something to behold, I'm sure.

My more reasonable side thinks it is a lousy idea, though. Things change. What's red now might in the not too distant future turn blue. Look at Florida and North Carolina, they are both hovering on blue. And even right wing to the core Texas will start changing because of demographics.

[BlindTiresias]

115. Eh, yeah I guess

The caliber of leftist that comes out of the south is not very good though and usually consists of far leftists who invoke a long gone time of regionally based militant unionists or they are milquetoast center-right people obsessed with social issues.

There is a real cultural divide in the United States and that -will- translate into political divide absent a highly centralized and autocratic state to keep everyone together such as in Russia or China.

[Louisiana1976]

164. I wouldn't mind a blue side union with Canada. It would give us single payer.

[BillZBubb]

179. and a lot more...

Canada has a well educated population, lots of land and resources, and pretty good government overall. The union would be a liberal, economic colossus.

[adigal]

116. I would like to not have to fight the idiot ideas that come out of conservative leaders

many of whom are in the south, although we sure have our share here in upstate NY. And might be getting another one if Tea Partier Elise Stefanik wins NY21 for Congress.

But we would have to make sure all progressives come here and all of the dogs and cats come with them, because I have been doing dog rescue from the south for 7 years, and it is getting a little better because of the progressives in the south. And a lot of the transplants. So if that couldn't happen, and it couldn't, I think we need to stay together to protect our southern friends.

[BlindTiresias]

120. Well...

[MohRokTah]

123. Always, everything, for THE UNION! eom

[Arugula Latte]

124. I'm sick of red state morons having undue influence

but not sure how I'd vote.

Please note, I'm not saying ALL people in red states are morons, just the ones who vote to keep Republicans in power.

[d_r]

125. No

I'm an American.

[stevenleser]

129. I'd probably vote No. But I would have to consider it, particularly since...

... I think within 20-30 years, the red states would see how conservative policies lead to complete ruin and would beg to reunite.

[Boom Sound 416]

130. Against, the monster of any majority

Is still a monster.

[LongTomH]

132. I believe a number of science fiction stories have been based on the idea of a Balkanized US

Robert A. Heinlein's Friday took place in such an environment.

I will say that I think it's an unlikely scenario; but, if you were trying to develop such a theme.........

You would have to include the fact that there are deep blue islands in some very red states. EX: Austin, TX. A lot of these are college towns. In your story, novel, novella, short, you might have some of those blue cities splitting off into independent city-states. That's an unworkable concept in reality; but, it might make for a good story!

Just remember, you have to split the royalties with me for giving you the idea!

[ZombieHorde]

134. The map doesn't tell the whole story though.

Some states are one color for President, but another color the other positions. Montana and Connecticut can be this way.

[Blue_In_AK]

137. I would vote no.

As I can tell you from Alaska's sad experience, just because a state starts out in the blue column doesn't mean it will stay there. This place was as progressive as it gets when it first became a state and up until the time the pipeline was built. I remember everyone was concerned about the environmental impacts of building the pipeline when we should have been more concerned about the demographic consequences. No offense to Texas DUers, but since the Texas and Oklahoma oil men came up here with all their southern conservative ideas, it's been all downhill. Sometimes I wish the oil would just dry up and they'd all go home.

[CanonRay]

139. I cannot fathom how it would work.

We are too intermixed. Even 40% of the worst Republican state votes blue. Liberals in Red states would be left without any Federal protection at all. I would love to live in a country without these lunatics, but I can't see a way to do it, unless I leave. Imagine living in Utah without Federal laws? No thanks.

[Doctor_J]

142. hell yeah

The sooner the better. Even if I lived in a red state I'd vote yes then move

[AngryAmish]

144. Yes

[DFW]

145. Very few States are permanently one way or the other

The current governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania are Republicans. One of the most hated Republican vice-presidents of the 20th century was a former Governor of Maryland. Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma. Ann Richards was from Texas. New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan and even California either have or have had Republican governors in the recent past. Kansas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri have/had Democratic governors. Hell, George McGovern was from South Dakota, fer Pete's sake. Al Gore is from Tennessee. When I was a kid, my dad used to have a Democratic Senator pal of his out to the house a lot. His name was Frank Church and he was from Idaho.

Things are just too fluid to punch a clock at one moment of history and say, "OK, we are going to divide the whole place up based on how things look at 2:45 PM on next March 24th."

Scotland has been Scotland for the better part of the last millenium. What were we 250 years ago?

[Corruption Inc]

146. Against. D voters are typically numerous in cities in both the red and blue areas

Dividing the country using a map doesn't work. For example, look at Richmond, VA, there are mostly D voters in the area even though it's in the middle of a heavy R voting region.

[Sancho]

147. I'm in purple Florida!! Can we split into N. Florida and S. Florida?

[Zorra]

149. I want California, Oregon, and Washington to secede and form a nation.

if British Columbia, Alaska, and Hawaii wanted to join in, the more the merrier.

We could name it after Chief Seattle, and make it the best place on earth to live, because all the conservatives would leave.

I'd move there in a heartbeat if there was even the slightest chance of pulling it off.

[Nay]

190. There's a book about that split -- it's called Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach. It's

a little dated (written in the 70's) in that it doesn't include the gadgets we have now, but other than that, it's a terrific description of what one sort of ecological society would look like.

[Zorra]

195. Yes, thanks.

I read it back in the day, very interesting read.

Still waiting.

[Nay]

196. Still waiting! I know! I still hold that book's theme as my ideal society, frankly. If

only we had managed to do something like that -- how much happier everyone would be. Sigh.

[elleng]

152. BlueState,

BlueMe,but.in.no.way.comparable.here.

[liberalmuse]

154. I'd love for the Pacific NW to branch off...

and become Cascadia. Otherwise, no. I used to live in Salt Lake City, which is the most liberal city in Utah, and it was still something of a theocracy. It was not easy being a liberal in that state, and I'm sure it's not easy being a conservative in some of the bluer states. I couldn't vote "yes" because I know that all states, red, blue and in-between have a spectrum of very liberal to very conservative inhabitants.

[merrily]

155. For only one thing, what happens if a state or group of states switches?

Not as though that has not happened before. Before the Civil Rights Act, all that red and purple in the south was blue and California was red, etc. Hell, even Indiana went for Obama in 2008.

For another, why are we defining blue and red states by Presidential elections only? There is an awful lot that goes on town by town, county by county, neighborhood by neighborhood, that is not reflected in electoral college. And what do you do with purple states?

Finally, you would have to have the consent of Congress and all 50 states. The Constitutional amendment giving women equal rights couldn't even pass in 50 states, and women are a majority. So, good luck with all that.

[Matrosov]

157. I'd vote No because..

..a unified country is stronger than the Blue States of America.

I would rather we work on figuring out how to stamp out conservative ideology and turn the red states into blue ones.

Take Texas for example. There are no doubt plenty of people on both sides who wouldn't be sad to see Texas go, but if we turn Texas into a Democratic state, the GOP would never win another Presidential election.

[HuckleB]

161. Cascadia!

I'd be a happy patriot, if Oregon, Washington and B.C. split off as its own nation.

Socially, we'd take care of our citizens, and we'd have plenty of resources, which would be much harder for the rest of the country to steal.

[BlindTiresias]

166. Cascadia sounds nice

I'd probably leave for the west coast myself, it would be amazing to be part of a country I could actually be proud of for once.

[bigwillq]

167. I live in a Blue State (CT). I don't what to split into colored states (nt)

[Captain Stern]

169. The racial demographics would be interesting.

The population of our country is currently about 12.6% Black.

If we split as shown on the map, with all the purple states going red, the blue states would actually end up being only about 9.5% Black, while the red states would increase to over 14%.

The percentages of Latinos would stay about the same, although I suspect that the percentage of Mexican-Americans would be higher in the red states.

I'm guessing that if the republicans in the red states knew this, they might not be so keen to split.

[Kaleva]

171. If one went by congressional districts, this is what the nations would look like

[moondust]

174. The red half would probably return to slavery.

Free States and Slave States, before the Civil War





http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/index.html

[La Lioness Priyanka]

175. if we really wanted to split like that, it would really be cities vs not-cities. not state vs state.

[PFunk]

177. The point is scottland should be a US wake up call as it seems like we are "united" in name only

Like it or not post Reagan America is already balkanized with very few threads holding us together. With many in this country working to cut even those threads. Unless something is done to both unite and deal with those who are doing this the calls for division will get louder.

At this point I'm on the fence but starting to lean more towards yes as the repugs, tea baggers and their ilk become more prominent. Which is IMO what many scotts feel as they think the UK government no longer represents them. I feel many blue state americans feel the same.

Hopefully we got time to fix this.

[Rex]

178. So the country could even be more divided?

What would that accomplish? Stir the pot much?

[politicat]

182. Either way, I'd be on the front lines, so no win situation.

That purple square in the middle? That's us. (Though it's more of a blue violet than red purple at this point.)

Regional issues are a big deal, and having Kansas on one border and Utah on the other would be... Tense.

I'd rather work towards shifting the red states that are 48-52 towards parity, work on shifting the congressional districts so that there's no such thing as a safe seat for anyone (because dammit, compact and contiguous mean something) and separating reality issues from bullshit.

[NaturalHigh]

187. Good question. I honestly don't know.

It would depend a lot on the specifics of the proposal, I guess.

[Warren Stupidity]

192. yes.

Although I think the map needs to be a bit more complicated.