Re: Sapwolf, #73: As I’ve pointed out before, repartitioning the USA along red/blue state lines carries its own set of big problems:
1) Demographically speaking, most states, even the ones traditionally dominated by one party, are not deeply red or blue, just varying shades of purple. What would you do with, say, all the red folks stuck in a slightly blue state because they have jobs and/or family ties there, or are otherwise unable to leave in the event of such a repartitioning?
2) Furthermore, many “blue” states, particularly in the Midwest, are really mostly “red” states which happen to include one or two very large, deeply blue metropolitan areas. Illinois, for instance, would turn from blue to red overnight if only it could somehow divorce itself from Chicagoland. If states are allowed to break away from the Union, would counties or regions within states also be allowed to break away?
3) Even if individual states are kept intact, after a repartitioning we’d still be left with two non-contiguous nations, whose residents would have to travel across, or fly over, foreign and possibly hostile territory just to get from one part of their own country to another. (See also Bangladesh, which was actually once Pakistani territory even though it was physically separated from the rest of Pakistan by India. Closer to home, English-speaking Canada would have the same problem wrt the Maritime Provinces if Quebec ever managed to break away.)
4) Last, but definitely not least, any attempt at breaking up the United States would inevitably have the same problem that Mr. Graham sees with up and moving to Costa Rica: “[E]motionally, it’s just not an option for most of us” who still believe in that bit in the Pledge of Allegiance about “one nation, indivisible” (YMMV on the “under God” part).
