为什么我们不能基于政治取向把美国分裂成两个国家呢？（第二部分） [美国媒体]

Why can't we just split the United States into two nations based on political orientation? It's clear that there are blue states and red states. Why force one sector upon the other? Why not just leave each other alone?

为什么我们不能基于政治取向把美国分裂成两个国家呢？很明显，这里有蓝色州和红色州。为什么把一方的政治倾向强加给另一个方呢？为什么不分开单独过呢？

Aaron Namba, Citizen, Expat · Answered Dec 9, 2013 · 3.7k Views
A lot of folks are coming at this the wrong way, in my opinion.
I think the U.S. would do well to adopt Korea's "metropolitan city" system, wherein a city, once it passes the 1 million mark, gains the option to "secede" from the surrounding province and become, essentially, a province in its own right, reporting directly to the federal government.
Beyond the top level, if you drill down deeper, you'll find that the provinces are further subdivided in a similar way.
The net result is that in Korea, the provinces remain largely rural, and  development is concentrated in the metropolitan cities. This is how you  stuff 50 million people into an area the size of Indiana (of which 30%  is flat...ish... in the way that San Francisco is flat), and still keep the country country.
And the other net result is that fewer people see their tax dollars (er, won) benefit people who  they feel are very different from themselves. Problem solved.

在我看来，很多人都走错了路。
我认为美国最好采用韩国的“大都会”制度，一旦投票超过100万大关，一个城市就可以选择“脱离”周边省份，从本质上说，它本身就成了一个省，直接向联邦政府报告。
在最高层之外，如果你挖掘得更深，你会发现各省也以类似的方式进一步细分化了。其最终结果是，在韩国，大部分的省仍然是农村，发展集中在大城市。这就是你把5000万人塞进一个面积相当于印第安纳州大小的地区(其中30%是平坦的…就像旧金山一样…)，并且它仍然保留着国家形式的方法。而另一个结果是，很少有人发现自己的税金(呃，韩元)被用何处，这不会让他们觉得自己吃亏了。问题解决了。

Michael T. Lauer, Amateur Photographer and Woodworker, Retired System Architect and Programmer · Answered Apr 23, 2014 · 1.4k Views
“Critics are our friends, they show us our faults.” (Ben Franklin)
Imagine a country with only one political party... No critics... Everyone toes the line, or else.  It wouldn't be a friendly country to its citizens.  Divided along political majorities in various districts this would not be a better place to live.  Imagine being a Democrat in a Republican only district (or the opposite).  Get out or face 'Cultural Re-Education Camps'.  Political discourse between the parties could evolve to open warfare.  Why not?  The political win is all that matters.  I get the '1984' vibe.
As citizens in a free country it is important to look at the track record of your leaders.  Does your representative only toe the party line?  If they never cross lines they are puppets of their party and as such are not good representatives.  Don't you listen to both sides of an argument before taking a position?  You should expect the same from those you elect to represent you.  If you have bad representatives then vote them out of office.  Don't look to divide the country along current party lines.
What happens if the Red states grow the food or if you need to cross a Red state to get food to another Blue state.  This sort of thing has happened before due to political disagreement leading to the starvation death of millions (Stalin and the Ukraine just has a disagreement carried to an extreme conclusion.  See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hol...).  This can manifest in many forms.  
Let's also consider that this country has had many political disagreements that survived criticism and had both parties supporting the final law, which benefitted by critical input from both parties.  Social Security is one such system originally opposed by Republicans but later supported when their critique was heard and incorporated.  While it still has flaws (no one expected us to live as long as we do and the number of children we have is much less than when the system was set-up) it endures and will likely continue for some time to come.  Imagine, a government policy that will likely see a century go by while remaining essentially intact!
So, let's continue to gain wisdom from our critics.  Let's impress that on our representatives.

“批评者是我们的朋友，他们向我们展示了我们的缺点。”(本·富兰克林)
想象一下只有一个政党的国家.。没有批评者.。每个人都要服从，否则……它不会是一个对公民友好的国家。在不同地区的政治之间存在分歧的情况下，这不会是一个适合居住的地方。想象一下，在一个共和党专区(或相反)里，作为唯一的一个民主党人。要么搬离出去，要么改变立场。两党之间的政治对话可能演变成公开战争。为什么不呢？政治胜利才是最重要的，我简直回到1984年的氛围里。

作为一个自由国家的公民，看一看你的领导人的履历是很重要的。你的代表是否只服从党的路线？如果他们从来不越界，他们是党的傀儡，因此不是很好的代表。在表态之前，你不听取辩论双方的意见吗？你应该从你选出来的人那里得到同样的期望。如果你有个糟糕的代表，那就投票让他们下台。不要指望按照目前的党派来划分这个国家。
如果红色的国家种植粮食，而你打算穿越一个红色国家，把食物送到另一个蓝色国家去，那会发生什么呢？这种事情以前曾发生过，因为政治分歧导致数百万人饿死(斯大林和乌克兰只是在一个极端结论上有分歧，见http：/en.wikipara.org/wiki/hol.)。这原本可以有很多方法解决。

让我们也考虑一下，这个国家有许多政治分歧在批评中幸存下来，双方都支持最终的法律，这得益于两党的批评意见。社会保障制度最初遭到共和党人的反对，但后来在他们的批评被听取和采纳后得到了支持。尽管它仍然存在缺陷(没有人期望我们活得像我们一样长，而且我们拥有的儿童数量比系统建立时要少得多)这种情况会持续，而且可能还会持续很长一段时间。所以，让我们继续从批评者那里获得智慧，让我们的代表记住这一点。

James Walker, ex public servant, masseur, security guard; by law an Aboriginal; by custom devil's advocate · Answered Nov 8, 2012 · 2.9k Views
Well, technically you could; it'd require a constitutional change but that is in theory do-able.
However, consider the partitions last century:
All horrible disasters. Even when side is clearly 'right' (frex Korea, I would add India and Israel) the difficulties involved in dealing with an unstable neighbour exceed the advantages of not having them within your own borders.
Now there is another I haven't listed, which is Czechoslakia. The Czechs and the Slovaks get on really well, but not quite well enough to form a single country: AFAIK it's the same as not being able to share a flat with your best friend. However when they split up it was regretfully and still being close friends: not a description that fits with Repulicans and Democrats.
Rather than a full separation, I'd suggest you look into devolving powers to the States so that you can have 50 different flavours of government, and simply vote with your feet to get the one closest to you ideal.

从技术上讲，这可能需要宪法改革，但理论上是可行的。
然而，考虑上世纪的划分：
所有可怕的灾难。即使一方显然是‘正确的’(我还要补充印度和以色列的例子)，与一个不稳定的邻国打交道的困难程度，超过你在自家国境内处理这些问题的难度。

现在，我还没有列出另一个例子，那就是捷克斯洛伐克。捷克人和斯洛伐克人相处得很好，但还不足以组成一个国家：就像不能和你最好的朋友共用一套公寓一样。然而，当他们分手的时候，他们觉得很遗憾，但仍然是亲密的朋友：这是不是一个符合共和党和民主党描述的例子。与其完全分离，我建议你考虑把权力下放给美国，这样你就能有50种不同的政府风格，用你的脚去投票也能得到最接近你理想的人选。

Irene Colthurst, Read Stephanopoulos' book at 13 · Answered Apr 6, 2015 · 2.1k Views
Because on the most pragmatic level, there is a lot of geographic mobility in the US, and geographic mobility is one reason for the polarization as people sorted themselves into likeminded communities, but that is already shifting again in some ways.   This level and type of polarization is striking in its congruence between region, partisanship, and ideology, but it is a very recent development, dating really only to the late 1990s at the state level.   Texas had a Democratic governor twenty years ago, and California, well, look at Arnold, but really Calif.'s politics shifted state wide in response to one issue: the provision of social services to illegal immigrants.  Prior to that it had Reagan as a governor.  Reagan who swept 49 states in 1984.  But look at other states: Virginia is now purple, after its northern counties turned blue due to new technology work coming in through the federal government.   North Carolina and Indiana have swung back and forth at the presidential level over the last two elections -- NC is growing a tech hub, and Indiana, well.  Utah is now growing a tech industry.   Meanwhile,  solidly progressive Wisconsin has had union-busting Scott Walker at the helm, and Maryland -- which wasn't socially liberal on race within the last 50 years, shall we say -- has gone progressive but now has a  Republican governor.   As does Massachusetts, I believe.  
New industries start, people move, issues both arise and fade -- look where we are with gay marriage compared to 2004 -- politics is not static.  Breaking up the U.S. would be ridiculous under these circumstances.  This is rather like the 1880s in terms of political polarization, but it's not complete congruence, and that period did lead to a realignment. 

因为在最务实的层面上，美国有大量的地域性流动，地域流动是两极分化的原因之一，因为人们将自己划分为相似的社区，但在某种程度上，这种两极分化已经在某种程度上再次发生了变化。这种两极分化的程度和类型在区域、党派关系和意识形态之间的一致性上是惊人的，但这中发展近期出现的，实际上只能追溯到以下几个方面：20世纪90年代末，德克萨斯州有一位民主党州长，加州的话，看看阿诺德，但问题实际上是加州，因为出现了一种情况：向非法移民提供社会服务。在此之前，里根担任州长。里根在1984年横扫了49个州。但看看其他州：弗吉尼亚现在已经是了。北卡罗莱纳州和印第安纳州在过去两次选举时在总统人选中来回摇摆-北卡罗莱纳州和印第安纳州正在发展成一个科技中心，而印第安纳州现在正在发展一个高科技产业区。与此同时，进步且坚定的威斯康辛州在工会中击败了斯科特·沃克(Scott Walker)。赫尔姆和马里兰州-我们可以说，在过去50年里在种族问题上没有社会自由主义-已经进步了，但现在出现了一位共和党州长。我相信，马萨诸塞州也是如此。

新的产业开始了，人员发生流动了，一些问题出现了，一些问题消失了-看看与2004年相比的数据，同性婚姻在所有地方都被反对-政治不是一成不变的。在这种情况下，分裂美国将是荒谬的。就政治两极分化而言，这与19世纪80年代颇为相似，但这并不是完全一致的，这一时期确实发生了一场大调整。

Ronald Kimmons, getting closer to the future every day. · Updated Jun 13, 2015 · 8.9k Views
I am a conservative. I shudder at the idea of a country run solely by Republicans. Not just because the party is corrupt, but also because of all the groupthink and lack of introspection and objectivity.
Anyway, cutting up the country in terms of "red states" and "blue states" wouldn't come even close to what you want to accomplish. Take Illinois, for instance. Chicago is blue. The rest of Illinois is red. The state is purple, so it would be forced to go one way or the other, leaving a significant portion of the population feeling disenfranchised in this great divorce.
Even if you could accomplish what you want, the result would be two nations with a combined influence significantly smaller than the influence of the late, great USA. It would also cause economic chaos - possibly a complete implosion. And for what? So we can stop being so annoyed at each other?
Let's stay together for the kids.

我是个保守派。一想到一个国家完全由共和党人统治，我就不寒而栗。不仅仅是因为党的腐败，还因为所有的集体思考和缺乏内省和客观性。
无论如何，从“红州”和“蓝州”的角度来划分这个国家是不可能达到你想要达到的目标的。以伊利诺伊州为例。芝加哥是蓝色的。伊利诺伊州的其他地方是红色的。这个州是紫色的，所以它将被迫走一条路或另一条路，使很大一部分人口感到在这次大离婚中被剥夺了权利。

即使你能实现你想要的，结果将是两个国家的影响加起来明显小于伟大美国的影响。这也会导致经济混乱-可能是一场彻底的内爆。为了什么？这样我们就能不再对彼此如此恼怒了？
让我们为了孩子们待在一起吧。

Jay Liu, works at Thomson Reuters · Answered Jun 10, 2015 · 2.8k Views
Let's take this point by point:
1. The US is indeed more politically, socially, and economically (in terms of standard of living) divided now than it's ever been, even more so than before the Civil War.
2. The division though, is not by state, at least not entirely.  It's a district by district division (thanks to gerrymandering).  Though one can also say it's a rural vs. urban division.
3. The changing nature of personalized media means that the division is only getting wider. In the old days, everyone had to watch the same 3 stations, all of which had a centrist view.  Now each slice of the political spectrum has their own dedicated news sources and so they basically live in an echo chamber.
What's the solution?  Is there a solution?  Perhaps, I suppose there must be.  But for the time being I can't conceive of one and no one else seems to even be trying.

1。事实上，美国在政治、社会和经济方面（在生活水平方面）比以往任何时候都更为分裂，甚至比内战前还要严重。
2.然而，这种划分并不是按州划分的，至少不是完全如此。这是一个逐区划分的地区(多亏了选区划分)。尽管人们也可以说，这是一个农村和城市的划分。

3.个性化媒体的不断变化意味着这种分化只会变得越来越广泛。在过去，每个人都要看同样的三个电视台，它们都有一个中间派的观点，现在每个政治派别都有自己的专门新闻来源，所以他们基本上生活在一个回音室里。解决办法是什么？有解决办法吗？也许，我想一定有，但就目前而言，我一个也没想到，而且似乎其他人也没人尝试去想。

Everett Wallace · Answered Feb 6, 2018 · 24 Views
We tried that once, it was called the US Civil War. You may have heard of it. It is less likely to work now than it was then. Why? Because what the various political movements in the US want is not to break off and create a new country, they want to make everyone agree with them, and splitting off is surrendering the battlefield to those evil and pig-headed “others.” Besides, i n spite of all the hue and cry about how independent the states are, and how there is no more economic dependence, the opposite is true. The Federal infrastructure is larger as a proportion of US population and GNP than it has ever been. Unless that infrastructure completely collapses - which would require a devastating and total collapse of the US economy, which BTW would trigger a worldwide collapse and incidentally create widespread famine and disease over roughly 2/3rds of the world’s surface, resource wars on all 5 continents, and probably reduce the world’s population by 50% or more - that isn’t going to happen.

我们曾尝试过一次，它被称为美国内战。你可能听说过。现在实现可能性比那时更低。为什么？因为美国各种政治运动的目的不是为了打破旧的创造一个新的国家，而是想让每个人都认同他们，分裂就是在战场投降把机会给那些邪恶愚蠢的“其他人”。国家是悬而未决的，怎么可能没有更多的经济依赖？有才是真实的。联邦基础设施作为美国人口和国民生产总值的一个比例比以往任何时候都要强大。除非基础设施完全崩溃——这将需要美国经济的彻底崩溃，顺便会引发全球范围的崩溃，并在全球约2／3的范围内造成广泛的饥荒和疾病，5个大陆上都可能发生了资源战争。这可能会使世界人口减少50%或更多——所以这是不可能发生的。

R. Eric Sawyer, Born in Canada, but lived in Texas since I was 2 · Answered Mar 11, 2015 · 700 Views
Even if the OP analysis were true, and I think quite a few of the responses raise very valid questions about that, but even if it were true, separation would be a bad idea. It almost always is, in my opinion.
Each group wants "that which will work best" But if I only converse with people who think the same thoughts I think, how am I ever to overcome my built-in blind spots? How will any of us ever get anything right? How will we ever get better if the entire structure of society is designed to confirm us right where we are, and to keep us from hearing challenge?
The way forward assuming common goals (and they should be assumed until proven different) is almost always to stay in fellowship and bash the ideas together. It's like driving a car where the steering pulls to the left, and the tires pull to the right. If you can't fix both problems, better to wait until you can; Left and Right are both wrong, but walking in concert they do less damage. 
Split them up and they will only end up in the ditches on opposite sides of the road.

即使OP分析是正确的，而且我认为相当多的答复对此提出了非常有效的解决方案，但即使这是真的，分离也不是一个好主意。在我看来，几乎总是如此。
每一组人都想要“最有效的”，但如果我只和那些想法相同的人交谈，我该如何知道自己原来的盲点呢？我们中的任何一个人怎么能得到正确的东西？如果整个社会结构的设计是为了确认我们所处的位置，并阻止我们听到不同意见，我们将如何变得更好？

假设共同的目标(在被证明不同之前，它们应该被假定)的前进之路上，几乎总是要保持团结和听取不同想法的。这就像驾驶一辆汽车，转盘向左，轮胎向右。如果你不能同时解决这两个问题，最好等到可以的时候；左、右都是错的，虽然步履维艰，但它们造成的伤害较小。
把他们分开，他们只会在死在马路对面的沟渠里。

Rebecca Romano, US citizen · Answered Feb 16, 2016 · 1k Views
The best answer is because the country as a whole would never agree to that.  Look at the Civil War.  That was the south basically feeling they have a right to leave the union whenever they wanted and the north saying they didn't and it cost about 750,000 lives give or take.  Even if you look at it politically those views really haven't changed that much in the last 150+ years.  Most whites in the south are red, more whites in the north are blue, then you have African Americans who are basically all blue in the south, so it's not an even split.  If the country stayed together after the civil war, when the north and the south were diametrically apposed in every way possible, which they aren't today, then there's no reason we can't make it work.  
Also if you want to look at it economically, it doesn't make sense for anyone, except maybe California with a GSP bigger than many countries, to want to go it alone.  Look at something like Hurricane Katerina.  Do you think the south could afford to recover from that without money from the rest of the country?  Probably not and if they did it would take even longer than it's still taking now.  
IMO the problem isn't that the country isn't working, but that the states aren't working.  I get that people who live in Montana need guns, but IMO people living in Connecticut don't need guns.  Why not have this be a state issue?  Why not have it be a city issue, like no Guns in NYC?  
Issues that have to do with human rights like family planning, marriage and basic discrimination should be national issues because I don't want to live in a country that legalizes bigotry, but people live differently in different parts of the country, so let the local rules reflect that because there is no way to divide up the country and even if we did divide up the country their would be an American style EU formed in the next few years because we're all stronger when we stick together.  The world can be a scary place and we all want backup.

最好的答案是，作为一个整体，国家将永远不会同意这一点。看看内战。南方人总觉得他们有权离开，只要他们想要，北方说他们不能这样做，然后它付出了大约750000生命代价。即使你从政治角度看待这些观点，在过去的150年里，这些观点并没有发生太大的变化。南方的大多数白人都是红色的，北方的白人更多的是蓝色的，然后还惨杂了非洲裔美国人，他们基本上都是南方的蓝色阵营，所以根本没法把他们均匀的分开。如果这个国家能在南北战争之后呆在一起，北方和南方在所有可能的情况下都是完全平等的，那么现在就没有理由不让它继续发挥作用。
此外，如果你从经济角度看问题，除了加州的普惠制高于许多州之外，其他人都不想独。看看卡特琳娜飓风吧。你认为，如果没有其他州的资金支持，南方有能力从这一状况中恢复过来吗？可能不需要也行，但是如果他们不需要，那就比现在还要花更长的时间才能恢复正常。

问题不在于国家不起作用，而是各州起不起作用。我知道住在蒙大拿的人需要枪，但生活在康涅狄格州的国际海事组织人不需要枪。为什么不把这作为一个州问题解决呢？为什么不像纽约没有枪那样当成一个城市的问题？
与计划生育、婚姻和基本歧视等人权有关的问题才应该是全国性的问题，因为我不想生活在一个使偏见合法化的国家，但人们在全国各地的生活方式不同，所以让地方规则来反映这一点吧，因为没有办法分割这个国家，即使我们确实分割了这个国家，一个美国式的欧盟会在未来几年出现的，因为当我们团结在一起时，我们都会变得更强大。世界是可怕的，我们都需要后援。

Philip Moore, Inventor · Updated Mar 6, 2015 · 6.4k Views
I'm delighted that this question keeps surfacing as more Quora readers discover the topic. I have a new perspective since I originally commented more than two years ago.
I believe much of the secession discussion is simply a symptom of the frustration Americans feel with our current federal government.  When I was growing up in Texas, we never even thought about what the Vermont state government was doing, but what the Vermont US Senator was doing often caused consternation.  My point is, this is not a State vs. State issue but rather a State vs. DC issue.  And in the last couple of years, I've learned about the act of 1871, which explains how the current federal government differs significantly from the federal government envisioned by the founding fathers in the original Constitution for the United States of America.
We have a lot of false pride based on the tenets of that original document; tenets that were superseded by the 1871 Act which created the District of Columbia and the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  The frustration generating the talk of secession comes from the expectations of personal sovereignty guaranteed in the Constitution of 1787 being dashed by the reality of living under the Constitution of 1871.

我很高兴这个问题被不断顶起来，因为有更多的Quora读者发现了这个话题。自从两年前我开始发表评论之后，现在我有了一个新的视角。
我相信，大部分关于分离的讨论只不过是美国人对我们现在的联邦政府感到沮丧的一种表现而已。我在德克萨斯州长大，我们甚至从来没有想过佛蒙特州政府做过什么，但是佛蒙特州的美国参议员所做的决定经常引起恐慌。我的观点是，这不是一个州对州的问题，而是一个州对特区的问题。在过去的几年里，我了解了1871法案，它解释了当前的联邦政府与美国最初宪法中的开国元勋们设想的联邦政府有哪些很大的不同。
基于这份原始文件的宗旨，引发了我们许多虚假的自豪感；1871法案取代了《哥伦比亚特区》和《美利坚合众国宪法》。分裂言论的挫折感来自1787“宪法”所保障的个人主权的期望，但却被1871“宪法”的现实规定毁了。

My original answer from 11/2012:
Clearly, splitting is a non-starter; and frankly, unnecessary.  There are very different preferences for the level of public services citizens in different areas wish to pay for and receive.  But we have a system perfectly suited to that condition, it's called a republic.  In a well run republic, the federal level provides the least-common-denominator level of public service.  Citizens who live in jurisdictions that want more, can vote for more.  
This is what the Constitution set out, so what broke?  In 1911, the Congress voted to cap the number of seats in the House of Representatives.  This meant that as the population grew, the size of a congressional district would also grow.  Larger districts means more expensive campaigns, increasing the influence of money and decreasing the efficacy of grass-roots campaigning.  Accountability of federal respresentation was written into the Constitution in article 1, section 2, part 3.  It stipulates one seat in the House for every 30,000 citizens.  If 15,001 votes could win a seat in Congress, broadcasts advertising would be far too inefficient to use.  Without the need to raise huge sums for re-election, Congressmen could vote their conscience instead of their coffers.
Short of going back to the original ratio of representation, we could also address the issue with a Constitutional Ammendment to cap federal spending at 10% of GDP.  This would keep the federal government constrained to the lowest common denominator of service and leave the states, counties, and cities to make up the difference.  In those areas where people wanted a lot of government, they could have it.  People who wanted to live in areas with lower taxes and less government could move there.
Charles Tiebout wrote a paper about this in 1956 while at the University of Chicago Tiebout model.  As a grad student at Rice University, I gathered data from municipalities around the country and correlated the level of public satisfaction with the variety of choices which provided empirical support for his hypothesis.  The solution to the disparate preferences of Americans is not secession, it's simply a return to the brilliance of the founding fathers.

显然，分裂是不可能的；坦率地说，也是没有必要的。在不同地区的公民付出的和希望获得的公共服务水平偏好有很大不同。但我们有一个完全适合这种条件的制度，被称为共和国。在运行良好的共和国，联邦一级提供的公共服务是最基础的。居住在司法管辖区的公民，如果想要更多，就可以投票给能给与更多的人。
这就是宪法所规定的，那么是什么破坏它了呢？1911年，国会投票决定限制众议院席位的数量。这意味着，随着人口的增长，国会选区的规模也会扩大。更大的选区意味着竞选活动要花费的更多，增加资金的影响力，降低了基层竞选的效力。联邦新出的问责制被写入宪法第1条第2款第3部分。它规定每3万名公民可以在众议院内有一个代表席位。如果15001张选票能赢得国会席位，那么广播广告的使用效率就太低了。国会议员无需为连任筹集巨额资金，他们可以凭良心投票，而不是努力增加自己的小金库。

重新回到原来的代表比例，我们也可以用宪法修正案来解决掉将联邦支出限制在GDP的10%以内的问题。这将使联邦政府提供的公共服务标准被限制在最低标准上，然后让各州、县和城市来弥补他们（各自所需的）差异。在那些人们想要很多服务的政府的地区，他们可以（投票）拥有它。想要生活在税率较低、政府（服务）较少的地区的人也可以搬到那里去。
1956年，查尔斯·蒂布在芝加哥大学的Tiebout模型上写了一篇关于这个问题的论文。作为莱斯大学的研究生，我收集了全国各市的数据，并将公众满意度与与选择的多样性相关联。解决美国人不同偏好的方法不是分裂，而是回归开国元勋的辉煌。

Craig Weinberg, Consciousness Conjecturerer · Answered Nov 8, 2012 · 2.4k Views
Although the idea of red and blue states is not a workable political model, I do think that the idea of experimenting with the political system may be worth considering. Maybe a few of the most liberal and conservative areas could be free to pursue their own agendas, and people would be allowed to migrate to those areas so that the demographic picture would change over time. Maybe government could be delivered like any other service, on an individual basis. Obviously some infrastructure is geographically dependent and would have to be pooled or divided that way, but with computers, perhaps we could in theory have a membership affiliation, pay dues, etc. rather than be subject to a uniform code of policies and enforcements.
Having said that, it may also be the case that any sort of division would lead to destructive competition, sabotage, and open conflict. It could be worse than what we have now, but I'd be willing to participate in a clinical trial.

虽然红色和蓝色国家的概念不是一个可行的政治模式，但我确实认为，尝试政治体系的想法值得考虑。也许少数最自由和最保守的地区可以自由地推行自己的议程，人们将被允许迁移到这些地区，这样随着时间的推移，人口状况将发生变化。也许政府可以像提供其他任何服务一样，以个人为基础。显然，有些基础设施在地理上是是有依赖性的，必须以这种方式进行合并或划分，但有了计算机，也许理论上我们可以采用会员资格、交纳会费等形式，而不是受制于统一的政策和执行准则。
话虽如此，但任何形式的分裂都可能引发破坏性的竞争和公开冲突。这可能比我们现在的情况还要更糟，但是我愿意参加这样一个临床试验。

Ernest W. Adams, Game Design Consultant, Author, and Professor · Upvoted by Carter Moore · Answered Feb 9, 2016 · 43.2k Views
Partly because it would create one country divided into two disparate regions, the East Coast and the West Coast. This was tried with East and West Pakistan following the partition of India. It didn't work out. East Pakistan rebelled and became Bangladesh.
Partly because New Orleans is America's single biggest port and the blue states wouldn't want to give up that shipping capacity. Nor would they want to give up the Gulf Coast oil.
Partly because the red states get far more money from the federal government than they contribute to it. They may not like the politics of the blue states, but they depend on the funding that comes from them.
Also, economic rivalry on the continent would probably lead to trouble.

部分原因是因为它会把一个国家划分成两个截然不同的地区，即东海岸和西海岸。这就像是在印度分治后，东巴基斯坦和西巴基斯坦进行的尝试。不太可能成功。东巴基斯坦起义，成为了孟加拉国。部分原因是新奥尔良是美国最大的港口，而蓝色州不想放弃航运能力。他们也不想放弃墨西哥湾沿岸的石油。还有部分原因是红州从联邦政府那里得到的钱远远多于他们对联邦政府的贡献。他们可能不喜欢蓝色州的政治方式，但他们依赖于他们的资金来源。此外，大陆内的经济竞争可能会带来麻烦。