I was considering posting this in the Philosophy S.E., to ask if this was an example of The Middle Ground Fallacy, but then realized that my context is entirely political.
Much of federal politics in the U.S. today seems to involve the two major parties taking turns undoing the "work" of the previous administration in a seemingly endless exchange of retaliation.
Since 1950, the majority party has only maintained control for at most three terms, and despite the core philosophical differences between each party, there are many common elements that citizens find dissatisfying (Congress as a whole for example):
Work done at the University of Toronto found strong correlations between personality traits and political affiliation. And as Jonathan Haidt often points out, citing Jon Stuart Mill, those with whom we disagree are often caricatured and misrepresented. This is because without engaging in deep and meaningful debate, most people start from an emotional premise (based on their temperament) and engage in confirmation bias with post hoc rationalizations in order to defend the emotional premise.
I'm familiar with Federalist arguments for a strong national economy and military, but when it comes to social programs, the prosecution of those who commit victimless crimes, surveillance, taxation, education, currency, etc., would many of the growing tensions between parties be ameliorated if people were allowed to vote with their feet in hundreds of locations instead of merely 50 states? The states themselves are typically controlled by the same two party system and do not offer much outside the status quo.
My pessimistic assumption is that average person is too ignorant or lazy to realize their own irrational condition and subconsciously crave state control, believing that one day their party will reign forever.
TL;DR If we know that people differ in temperament, and most wish to live in environments where state control does not dictate their behavior and forcibly redistribute their resources into programs they abhor, why is secession or at least smaller, autonomous localities not proposed as a solution in mainstream political discourse?