While the disagreements between political parties have naturally always been present in the USA, their differences were historically nuanced, and Representatives of both parties regularly found common ground on a variety of issues. Party lines were not hardened back then, and movements like the Mugwumps (Republicans supporting a Democratic presidential candidate in 1884) were not unommon.

Starting in the 1970s, and especially in the the 2000s party lines thicken. With the election of Donald J. Trump, the divide of the USA has been more easy to see and deeper than ever.

(There is even somewhere on Stackexchange a graphic showing the likelihood of one representative to vote the same way as one from the other party. They diverge notably in the last 3 to 5 decades)

Let me be clear: This question is not grounded on Trumps victory alone. The political values of the Americans - be it universal health care and medicare, military spending, immigration policy, foreign policy, stance on the 2nd amendement, womens reproductive rights, social programs, and economic regulation - differ excessively; much more than they do in most countries.

In 2016 61% of the US population lived in so called "landslide" counties, the highest amount in recorded history. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/purple-america-has-all-but-disappeared/)

With a divide this deep, and world views so different, I ask this:

Would the complete seperation of the USA in two different unions not be advantageous for their respective population in reaching their political self-determination? Would such a scenario be sustainable? If not, how so?

Considering the voting behaviour of the states, and trying to avoid enclaves, I would propose enter image description here

DAA: ~170 million people

RUA: ~155 million people

One of the great advantages I see is that both can change their individual political system in ways that suits their philosophy, most likely radically altering their respective constitutions. Although easily mistaken that way from the picture, this doesn't mean each current american party gets its own country; but people of similiar ideology.

Once both countries were established, the "demixing" would spike for a short period, as people would move to the America of their values.

  • 1
    Welcome to Politics Stack Exchange. Please note that the purpose of this website is to explain politics, not make them. Brainstorming new political ideas is not within our scope. You might pitch this concept to a more discussion-oriented website.
    – Philipp
    Oct 20 '18 at 14:22
  • 2
    For one reason, it was tried. Got about 2/3 of a million people killed. For another, you then have a divided states problem. For instance, the major urban areas of California are much different from the agricultural Central Valley, and both differ from the rural Sierra & Coastal area. Much the same is true of Upstate New York vs NYC. And in Nevada, Las Vegas isn't even in the same universe as the rest of the state.
    – jamesqf
    Oct 20 '18 at 18:02
  • 1
    Ohio? really? As a resident of Ohio I would resent being associated with new england Oct 21 '18 at 15:44
  • 1
    The voting behavior isn't by state, it's by population density. What do you do with Atlanta? or the rural areas of NY and CA? Not to mention, Democratic economic policies are based off giving to the poor. Given that almost all of those red states are net recipients (And generally, much poorer than the blue ones you outlined), the nature of their desires have no purpose anymore. New England/NYC and CA naturally are already extremely socialist and progressive within their jurisdiction, so their voting behaviors on the Federal level only really affect the red states anyway. Oct 25 '18 at 1:02
  • 1
    Similarly, the red state's desire to loosen taxes on corporations won't work well once the blue states have complete control. All of tech is in CA, and the rest is in the North East. I'll tell you that Alabama does not have very many corporations that they can free from taxes. For social policies, it's the same thing. It's already easy to get an abortion in blue states, and hard in central US. The red wants to stop deaths and the blue wants to allow rural women to abort. Neither get what they want if you split it. Oct 25 '18 at 1:07