为什么我们不能基于政治取向把美国分裂成两个国家呢？（第三部分） [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？

Mark Springfield, studied at MIT Sloan School of Management · Answered Feb 10, 2016 · 696 Views
The blue state / red state issue is temporary.
America has been growing out of it for decades and will continue to grow out of it in decades to come.
Focusing on splitting the country in response to tensions that are not likely to last forever is the definition of short-sighted.
And the downsides will be huge and would likely lead to war.
For example, which side gets Kentucky? It's a solid red state with a solid blue center (Louisville). Same for Louisiana's relationship to New Orleans.
And the states get along far better than our politicians would have us to believe. The big blue state versus red state thing is largely a tool that politicians to get elected (and that the media uses to simplify an exciting narrative).
The country's fine. It's loud and messy and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are embarrassing in the extreme.
But, overall, the country's fine. 

蓝色州/红色州的问题是暂时的。
美国几十年来一直在增长，未来几十年将继续增长。
国家的紧张局势不可能一直持续，将关注点放在这个问题上的行为是目光短浅的。
而且不利的方面很严重的，很有可能导致战争。
例如，哪一方得到肯塔基？它是一个稳定的红色州，却又有一个坚实的蓝色中心（路易斯维尔）。路易斯安那与新奥尔良的关系也一样。
各州实际情况比我们的政客们相信的要好得多。蓝色大州与红色州的关系在很大程度上是政客们参与选举的工具（媒体用来简化的一个激动人心的故事）。
这个国家很好。虽然它又吵又乱，且唐纳德·特朗普和Ted Cruz令人极端尴尬。
但总的来说，这个国家还是很好的。

Eric Puravs · Answered Sep 7, 2014 · 623 Views
There is no way in the Constitution - but it could be changed. But before doing that, people need to practice by leaving other countries alone. Imagine seeing the crisis in Iraq and Ukraine and  deciding nothing can or should be done. Because putting the "other" part of the US into another country won't stop them from meddling with you or you with them, if people are thinking it is ok to meddle in other countries. Advancing an ultra-conservative social agenda sounds like something that will upset many, from liberal to non-ultra conservative. There will be sanctions or possibly war. 
And think about how far the breakup should go. Would the US break up into just Red and Blue, based on states? States like California and Colorado  already have proposals to break up internally into separate parts. Would Indian reservations also want independence?  Maybe also individual counties and cities? And even some individual people, there are some now who claim to be their own country, but no one believes them.
And if it does happen, there will be increasing infrastructure mismatches and other problems.  Red states may not want to fund Medicare now, but if they become independent, they will have to decide something about how the people over 65 in those states or areas pay for medical care.

宪法中没有办法——但它可以被改变。但在这样做之前，人们需要看看其他国家的先例来吸取教训。想象一下，看到伊拉克和乌克兰的危机，并且什么决定都不能做，也不应该做。因为把美国的“其他”部分划到了另一个国家，如果人们认为干涉其他国家是可以的，这当然不会阻止他们干涉你或你对他们进行干涉。推进极端保守的社会议程听起来会让很多人感到不安，从自由派到非极端保守派。将会有制裁或者战争。
想想分手后能走多远。美国会会根据这个把州划分成红色和蓝色吗？加州和科罗拉多等州已经提出了将内部分割成不同部分的建议。印度的保留地也想要独立吗？也许还有个别的县和市？甚至某些人，现在也有人称是自己为国家了，但没有人相信他们。
如果真的发生了，基础设施跟不上的问题以及其他问题会越来越多。现在，红色州可能不想为医疗保险基金提供资金，但如果他们独立，他们将不得不面对在这些州或地区65岁以上的人如何支付医疗费用的问题。

John Jelsovsky, Long time political junkie and observer of human interaction · Answered Mar 19, 2015 · 404 Views
Why can't we? Because the Federal Government says we can't. We already fought one civil war over that very premise. Support for splitting up the country has been growing for years and is likely to keep growing as the country becomes increasingly polarized and politically motivated violence more common. Maybe someday there will be enough support to amend the US Constitution to allow secession or maybe even scrap it entirely, but that will be a while yet.
If it did happen, the next obstacle is that unlike in 1860 there is no clear geographic division. You have blue cities in red states (Austin comes to mind). The divide is more urban/rural than north/south now. Even upstate New York votes Republican. They are just more than offset by NYC. So we would end up having to have a mass migration on the level of the partition of India with the corresponding violence and suffering. Still, I believe things will get so bad that even that looks like a positive move. From my perspective we can either break up like Czechoslovakia or risk breaking up like Yugoslavia.

为什么我们不能？因为联邦政府说我们不能。我们已经在这个前提下打过一场内战了。支持分裂国家的人多年来一直在增长，而且随着国家两极分化以及出于政治动机的暴力行为日益加剧下变得更加普遍，这种支持可能还会继续增长。也许有一天会有得到足够的支持来修改美国宪法，允许分裂，甚至完全废除宪法，但这还需要一段时间。
如果确实发生了，下一个障碍与1860年不同，没有明确的地域划分。在红色州内有蓝色的城市(我想到了奥斯汀)。现在出现更多鸿沟的是城市/农村，而不是南北两地。就连纽约州北部也投共和党人的票。他们只是被纽约整体数据抵消了。因此，我们最终不得不在类似印度分治的层面上进行大规模迁移，并忍受随之而来的暴力和痛苦。尽管如此，我相信事情会变得更加糟糕，即使这看起来好像是一个积极的举动。在我看来，我们可以像捷克斯洛伐克那样分裂，也可以像南斯拉夫那样冒险分裂。

You didn't ask "Would it be a good idea to split up the States?" You asked, "Why can't we just split up the states?"
"We" can't because we don't have the power to do it, whether it's a good idea or not. Even if a majority of the people in the country decided it would be a good idea, I doubt they could enact it peacefully. The USA is a single country. There's no clause in the Constitution that says, "If the majority wants the country to split in two, that's cool."
So we can't do it, because if we tried to, the Federal Government would say, "No way!" And if we insisted, they'd send the military (which they control) to stop us. Which is kind of their job: part of the government's job is to hold the county together as a single entity. 
I'm also extremely skeptical that a majority would go along with this. For instance, many Liberals are not going say, "Hey, we're fine with homosexuals not being allowed to marry in Alabama, because that's not part of Bluemerica," and many Conservatives are not going to say, "Abortions are fine with me, as long as they don't happen in Redmerica."
It almost never happens -- in fact, has it ever happened? -- that the populous of a country peacefully decides to split into multiple countries. When people want to split, it generally means a civil war with lots of bloodshed. 
It also sounds like a logistical nightmare: our states aren't self-sustaining. They survive, in part, on Federal funds. Since Obama is in office, I'm assuming, at least right now, the Red states would become their own country. Does this mean they'd instantly lose access to all help from Washington? That would suck for them. 
We have a complex infrastructure that assumes we're all part of the same country. It would be a nightmare to carve it all up.

你没有问“分裂美国是个好主意吗？”你问的是：“为什么我们不能把各州分开呢？”我们“不能，因为我们没有权力这样去做，不管这是否是个好主意。即使这个国家的大多数人认为这是个好主意，我也怀疑他们能否和平地实施。美国是一个独立的国家。“宪法”中可没规定，“如果多数人希望国家分裂成两半，那很酷。”
所以我们不能这样做，因为如果我们试图这样做，联邦政府会说，“没门！”如果我们坚持，他们会派军队(他们控制的)阻止我们。这也是他们的工作：政府的工作之一就是把各个州作为一个整个的实体团结在一起。
我也非常怀疑大多数人是否会同意这一点。例如，许多自由党人不会说，“嘿，我们不允许同性恋在阿拉巴马州结婚，因为这不是蓝色美国的一部分，”大部分的保守党人也不会说，“堕胎对我来说很没关系，只要他们不发生在红色美国。”
它几乎从来没有发生过-事实上，它曾经发生过吗？-一个国家的人口和平地决定分裂成多个国家。当人们想要分裂时，通常意味着内战和大量流血事件。
这听起来也像是一场后勤噩梦：我们的州无法自我维持。他们在一定程度上依靠联邦基金生存。自从奥巴马上台以来，我认为，至少现在，红州想要他们自己的国家。这是否意味着他们会立即失去从华盛顿来的所有帮助？这对他们来说太糟糕了。
我们有一个复杂的基础设施匹配，假设我们都是同一个国家的一部分。把它分割开就会成为一场噩梦。

Thomas L. Johnson, Suffered under Richard Nixon, was . . . · Answered Mar 14, 2015 · 2.4k Views
Mainly because it makes no sense whatsoever.
While some hold to the myth that there absolutely blue and absolutely red states, what there really are are majorities. In live in Minnesota, one of the bluest states of all. Despite that, we had Tim Pawlenty, a moderate Republican, and Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party Republican, running as candidates in the last presidential round. In any election, the difference between Republican and Democrat is negligible. Senator Al Franken won his first term as Senator only after a statewide recount. 
A red state like Arkansas is the home of Bill and Hillary Clinton. When I lived there for a year, Bill Clinton was my governor. While Arkansas recently elected the ridiculous Tom Cotton (he of the letter to Iran) over the Democrat, Mark Pryor, Arkansas in the deep South is no more lead-pipe cinch Republican than Minnesota is Democrat.
A split would make no sense. The South, a net recipient of federal taxes, would fall further behind the North in education and health care. The North, where winters are long and cold, would miss the ability to spend vacations in Arizona or Florida. 
The USA is one country with one language, one currency, one history, one 230 year old Constitution, and a unified power grid, transportation system, and trading policy.
It would make more sense for Bavaria to split from Germany than for the USA to split into two pieces.

主要是因为它没有任何意义
虽然有些人坚持认为有绝对的蓝色和红色州，但实际上多数人不这么认为。我生活在明尼苏达州，最蓝的州之一。尽管如此，我们也有温和的共和党人蒂姆·波伦蒂和茶党共和党人米歇尔·巴赫曼，在上一轮总统选举中他们作为候选人参加竞选。在任何选举中，共和党和民主党之间的差异都是微不足道的。参议员阿尔·弗兰肯在全州重新计票后才赢得了他的第一个参议员任期。
像阿肯色州这样的红色州是比尔和希拉里·克林顿的家乡。我在那里住了一年，比尔·克林顿是我的州长。虽然阿肯色州最近选了个可笑的汤姆·科顿(是他给伊朗写的信)而不是民主党人，但南部深处的阿肯色州的马克·普赖尔(MarkPryer)并不像明尼苏达州那样是共和党人，分裂是没有意义的。南方是联邦税收的净接受者，在教育和医疗保健方面将远远落后于北方。北方，那里的冬天漫长而寒冷，将失去在亚利桑那州或佛罗里达州度假的可能。
美国是一个语言单一、货币单一、历史悠久、有着230年历史的国家，是一个统一力量、运输系统和贸易政策的国家。
巴伐利亚从德国分裂出来比美国分裂成两部分更有意义

Aaron Jantzen, former Metaphysicist (2003-2004) · Answered Feb 20, 2017 · 87 Views
If that were good advice then you’d imagine that Jewish families who left Germany and came to America would be in perfect agreement, always happy, right? No family arguments or disagreements? And the Hassidics sit down for dinner with the Reform Jews for a dinner of bacon cheeseburgers? No, actually, they don’t agree, they won’t have dinner together, and yes, even within a single family they’ll argue bitterly especially on political or religious issues.
Just how would you split the US in two, into Democrats and Republicans? Or Conservatives and Liberals? And what would you do with those who are none of the above, middle of the road, Libertarian, Green party, Democrat fiscal conservatives, Republican progressives or any of the thousands of other possibilities? Any split you could possibly make would only suggest the needs for more and more splits.
If for instance you imagine “Conservative traditional white conservatives,” and “everyone else,” then if you’re an Eastern millenial liberal democrat, you’re also lumped into a group that includes conservative Hassidic Rabbis, Radical Imams and the Hells Angels, since they don’t fit in the other group. And even if you whittled down your group by expelling 8000 other subgroups that you don’t agree with and finally your group only had people in your age group who live on your street in Brooklyn, you’d still want to further divide it among the renters and owners, and the veggies versus meat-eaters.

如果这是个很好的建议，那么你可以想象，离开德国来到美国的犹太家庭会完美和谐，永远幸福的生活，对吧？没有家庭纠纷或分歧？哈西迪人和改革派的犹太人共进晚餐一起吃培根芝士汉堡？不，实际上，他们不可能这样，他们不会一起吃饭的，是的，即使是在一个家庭里，他们也会在政治或宗教问题上激烈争论。
你怎么把美国分成两部分，变成民主党和共和党？还是保守派和自由派？你会怎样对待那些不属于上流社会、自由派、绿党、民主党财政保守派、共和党进步派或其他成千上万种可能性的人呢？你可能会做出的任何分裂，都只会最终导致你需要进行越来越多的分裂来满足分歧。
例如，如果你想象“保守的传统白人保守派”和“其他人”，那么如果你是一个东半球的自由民主党人，你也会被归入一个包括保守的哈西迪奇·拉比、激进的伊玛目和地狱天使的群体中去，因为他们不适合另一个群体。即使你驱逐掉8000个你不同意的其他分组，最终你的群体中只剩下住在布鲁克林你所在这条街的人，你还是的把它进一步分割成租房者和业主，素食主义者和食肉者之类。

Robert Duncan · Answered Nov 16, 2012 · 51 Views
Juan: While I am assuming you mean that the "Red States" (the Midlands) would collapse into poverty and the Blue States would expand economically I thought a few data points might provide a somewhat different picture. Over the last five years income in real dollar terms in Red States have grown 4.7%, Swing States 1.7%, and Blue states by 0.5% (half of one percent). Overwhelmingly, the best economies in the country are in Red States
In answer to the original question, there is nothing in the original constitution that  specifically prohibits a state from withdrawing. The drafters made some efforts to attempt to bind the states together voluntarily (e.g. no restrictions on interstate commerce) but it was not envisioned as a one way street. We have added many states over the years we could effectively remove some - but it would be messy.
I will not recite additional information regarding the fact that we are a "collection of states" and not a unified entity since Phillip Moore did that above.

胡安：虽然我假设你的意思是，“红色国家”(中部地区)将陷入贫困，而蓝色国家将在经济上扩张，但我认为，几个数据点可能会提供一些不同的情况。在过去五年中，红州的实际美元收入增长了4.7%，摇摆州增长了1.7%，蓝色州增长了0.5%(半个百分点)。绝大多数情况下，这个国家最好的经济体是在红色州。
回答最初的问题，在最初的宪法中没有明确禁止一个州退出的任何条款。起草者们作出了一些努力，试图将各州自愿地捆绑在一起(例如，对州际商业没有任何限制)，但人们不认为这是一条单行街道。多年来，我们增加了许多州，我们可以有效地去除一些州——但这将会引出一场混乱。
我不打算罗列更多的信息，我们是一个“州集合体”，而不是一个真正统一的实体，因为菲利普摩尔是这样说的。

Robert Rapplean, amature political scientist · Answered Nov 8, 2012 · 2.6k Views
Because then we'd go to war with each other instead of fighting over politics. If one side won the war, we'd be rejoined in a relationship more contentious than the current one. If we eventually learned to stop fighting each other, we'd probably suffer from the same internal infighting that we suffer from now, just on at half scale. This is just how humans work.

因为那样我们就会彼此开打而不是现在这样为了政治费口水。如果一方赢得这场战争，我们就会重新加入到一个比现在更有争议的关系中来。如果我们最终学会了停止相互争斗，我们可能会经历与现在一模一样的内讧，只是在规模上会减半。人类社会就是这样运作的。

Al Nelson, Voting since the '70's · Answered Nov 8, 2012 · 4.4k Views
I have India and Pakistan on hold, so I just have a minute.
Dividing into factions is the old us. It is sad and dumb and leads to violence and ever smaller divisions and ranks until you dislike everyone. That is not good.
Working together is the future. There is real power there. Cooperative ventures and shared rewards. Many hands make light work. Join in.

让我话一分钟来看看印度和巴基斯坦这个例子。
我们总是在分派别。这是可悲的，愚蠢的，会导致暴力和很多更小的派系，一直分到你不喜欢每一个人为止。这是不好的。
合作才会有未来。才能有真正的权力。合作和共享成果。人多好办事。加入进来吧。

Bryan Kingsford, fellow life traveler · Answered Jun 3, 2015 · 764 Views
This is exactly why the concept of federalism is so important. Separating power between the federal government and the states, as set forth in the Constitution, maximizes freedom by allowing people to associate with others who more closely share their views on government.
For example, reasonable people can disagree about how big government should be, but if all power is at the federal level, there is no red or blue state.

这就是为什么联邦制的概念如此重要的原因。根据“宪法”的规定，联邦政府和各州之间的权力分离，但是允许人们分享他们对政府的看法，这最大限度地实现了自由。
例如，理智的人可能不同意政府规模太大，但如果所有权力都在联邦一级，就没有红色或蓝色的州之分了。

Chris Mcclay, studied at Southern Institute of Technology · Answered Sep 17, 2017 · 353 Views
For those promoting secession etc , aside from its obvious impossibility based on any map posted or attainable , I'd have to ask if what you want is monarchy?
What made our country a great democratic success , even with its occasional failures , has been our differences. Two parties or more, we've always had both sides to keep things “acceptable “ to both sides.
Now we want just one sides opinion to rule them all? How would that work other than monarchy?
Also, to those against capitalism , who is the last “poor” candidate offered by either side ? Who was the last president to not use capitalism to make money on speeches etc after their presidency? I don't understand this thought process - please explain.
As far as the comparisons on economic standings of USA versus more socialist countries , go back 30 years , or jump ahead 30 years. It'll be different. While the world economy is definitely intertwined , every country has its own and it fluctuates.

对于那些鼓吹分裂国家的人，除了在地图上实现一下之外实际情况中显然是不可能的，我想问一下你是想要回到君主制吗？
我们的分歧使我们的国家取得了巨大的民主成就，即使它偶有失败。两党或更多党派，我们总能找到双方或者各方都“可以接受”的事情。
现在我们想让一方的意见来统治所有人了，如果不回到君主制，那又如何运作呢？
另外，对于那些反对资本主义的人来说，你能找出来个最“穷”的候选人么？能找出一个在总统任期结束后不利用资本主义来赚钱的总统么？我不明白你们的思维过程-请解释一下。
就美国与更多社会主义国家的经济地位进行比较，可以追溯到30年前，或者更早的30年。会有不一样情况。虽然世界经济确实是交织在一起的，但每个国家都有自己的经济，而且都会有波动的。

Peter Flom, I live here · Answered Feb 9, 2016 · 8.8k Views
There aren't red states and blue states there are purple states. And, within each state, there are conservative and liberal regions.  And a single continuum from red to blue really isn't enough.
For example, Salt Lake City is in Utah - one of the reddest states there is. But SLC elected Rocky Anderson mayor. Twice. Anderson is somewhere near Bernie Sanders in terms of politics. On the other hand, NY City is in NY state which gave Obama 63% over Romney) but NYC elected Republican mayors (Giuliani was certainly Republican, Bloomberg at least ran as one).  Colorado Springs is one of the most conservative cities but Colorado is purple.
In 2012, the highest % that Romney got was 72% in Utah.  That's not the whole population. And the highest Obama got was 70% in Hawaii.
And what would you do with all the purple states and deeply divided ones? In 2012 there were 14 states where the gap between Obama and Romney was less than 10 points.

没有绝对的红色的州和蓝色的州，只有紫色的州。而且，在每个州内，都有保守和自由的地区，从红色到蓝色的单一划分是不够的。
例如，盐湖城位于犹他州-那里是最红的州之一。但SLC选举洛基·安德森为市长。两次都如此。就政治立场而言，安德森离伯尼·桑德斯很近。另一方面，纽约市位于纽约州，奥巴马的支持率比罗姆尼高出63%，但纽约市选举出了个共和党的市长(朱利安尼当然是共和党人，布隆伯格也是其中之一)。科罗拉多斯普林斯是最保守的城市之一，但科罗拉多州是紫色的。
2012年，罗姆尼在犹他州获得的最高支持率为72%，但这并不是全部人口。奥巴马在夏威夷获得的最高支持率为70%。
你预备如何处理所有的紫色州和严重分裂的州？2012年，在14个州的票数上，奥巴马和罗姆尼之间的差距不到10个百分点。

Eshaan Vakil · Answered Apr 23, 2015 · 569 Views
The US doesn't work that way. It's technically a union of states. However, the Constitution establishes that the Federal Govt is more powerful than the states. The Feds have to administer all 50 states. So, it is impossible to separate the states as long as the Constitution stands. Also, there is no real place where you can draw a border or line demarcating the two new nations.

美国不是这样运作的。从技术上讲，这是一个国家联盟。然而，宪法规定联邦政府比各州更强大。联邦政府必须管理所有50个州。因此，只要宪法存在，就不可能把各州分开。此外，没有真正合适的位置可以划定边界或界定成两个新的国家。

Carl Holmberg, BA Political Science, avid follower of politics for 35 years, campaign volunteer · Answered Jan 16, 2016369 Views
Others have sufficiently covered the fact that despite the winner-take-all style of representation, there are Republicans/Democrats, liberals/conservatives throughly mixed in across the country, much as were pro/anti-seccessionist views back in the day. So, breaking those people apart would be a mess.
I’ll add a legalistic answer: there isn’t any Federal legislation, and very little case law, that provides any mechanism for a peaceful divorce. All we really have to go on is Texas v. White, a Supreme Court case from 1869. It suggests that any breakup would require the blessing of the states. In my opinion, it would work along the lines of a Constitutional amendment, requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of each house of Congress and the states, and require a proportional split of debt and the equipment of the armed forces.

一些人充分掩盖了这样一个事实：尽管共和党/民主党、自由派/保守派在全国范围内混为一谈，但与当时支持/反对分离主义的观点大同小异。所以，把这些人拆散会很混乱。
我将补充一个法律上的答案：没有任何联邦立法，几乎没有判例，为和平分割（国家）提供任何支持。我们所要做的就是德州诉怀特案，这是1869年最高法院的一宗案件。这意味着任何分手都需要各州的支持。在我看来，它将遵循宪法修正案的方针，要求国会两院和各州各2/3的同意，并要求按比例分配债务和武装部队的装备。

Terry Yelmene, life-long learner · Answered Apr 30, 2015 · 438 Views
I've come to like the 9 Country North America concept even with the full realization that it would require me to migrate - (from the Wisconsin Red zone perhaps to Portland, Oregon or Vancouver, BC).

我开始喜欢北美9个国家的概念，即使我完全意识到这可能使得我必须搬家——（从威斯康星红区到波特兰，俄勒冈或温哥华，BC）

Marcia Peterson Buckie, 3d generation American · Answered Mar 31, 2015 · 1.3k Views
The states aren't broken up that easily. I'm a liberal in a Republican controlled state.  They don't really want us all the leave: it would probably leave our largest universities with 1/3 the faculty and staff. Forget about luring out of state students with that scenario. 
We've got some universities known for being conservative: Hillsdale College and A few others. But they're small.
I don't want all the conservatives to leave either, a lot of them are my friends and neighbors. My daughter teacher is a Tea Partier and she's awesome. 
Then if we looked at this as a divorce,  how we divide up the assets? Natural resources, the military, tourist attractions, infrastructure. 
Sometimes I think the country is too big , but dividing  up by politcal leaning is not the way to do it.

各州不那么容易被分开的。我是一个共和党控制的州的自由派，他们没想要让我们全部离开：这可能会导致我们最大的大学只剩下1/3的教职员工。别忘了用这种方法还可以吸引其他州的学生。
我们已经有了一些以保守着称的大学：希尔斯代尔学院和其他几所大学。但它们很小。
我也不希望所有的保守派都离开，他们中的很多人都是我的朋友和邻居。我的女儿老师是一个茶党，她很棒。
那么如果我们把这看作离婚，我们该如何分配资产、自然资源，军事，旅游景点，基础设施？
有时我认为这个国家太大了，但是用政治倾向来划分并不是解决问题的办法。

Pike Lynch, former Medically Retired · Answered Dec 1, 2015 · 3.6k Views
The U.S. doesn't need to split up. If it were to split up,  Red and Blue would unified by war. Red invades because blue is godless, have drugs, and support immigrants. Or Blue invades because of pollution, zealots, or want to liberate the people. We just need to stop listen and understand. Stop with smart ass and snarky remarks. Stop with the non-comparmise attitude and the " I'm right and know what right for you and the country ". No more fear mongering.

美国不需要分裂。如果它分裂了，红色国和蓝色国将因为战争而再次统一。红色会入侵是因为蓝色是无神论者，毒品，支持移民。而蓝色会入侵则是因为污染、狂热分子想要解放人民。我们只需要停下来倾听和理解。别再用自以为聪明的尖酸话去刻薄对方。别再抱着相互比较的态度了，“我才是对的，我知道什么才是你和国家拥有的权利”。不要再制造恐惧了。

Drew Henry, Physicist-in-Training, Libertarian, Drug Enthusiast · Updated Mar 14, 2015 · 2.2k Views
The individual states are supposed to serve that purpose. Education is a state issue. Health care is a state issue. If it weren't for the federal government handling so many issues that should be handled by the individual states, the United States would be as you described (except split into 50ths instead of halves).

各州都应该为这一目的服务。教育是国家的问题。医疗保健也是国家问题。如果不是因为联邦政府处理了这么多应该由各州处理的问题，美国就会像你所描述的那样(用州政府分担一半责任去代替分裂成两半儿)。

Dave Toms, Psych grad, humanist, and licensed shit disturber · Answered Nov 9, 2012 · 770 Views
It's been tried already, I understand, with no success despite a humongous expenditure of lives and treasure! BTW, many Canadians would already consider liberal some of the states you have labeled Blue.

我已经明白了，尽管生命和财宝都被挥霍殆尽，但还是没有成功！顺便说一句，在你把一些州画成蓝色时许多加拿大人已经考虑国自由主义的国家这个概念了。

Anonymous · Answered Jul 9, 2016 · 383 Views
California would be a relatively easy contender of separating from the Union. Already, larger than French economy, formerly the 6th largest. Possibly United Kingdom too, which would mean California is the 5th largest economy in the world. As with large successful economy, water and energy can be purchased from commodity based States. And a big plus would be no longer send a cut of our revenue to subsidize States with divergent views, with heavy Trump supporters.

加州将是一个相对容易脱离联邦的候选者。已经超过法国经济规模，以前是第六大经济体。也可能（已经超过）英国，这意味着加州是世界第五大经济体。与大型成功经济体一样，水和能源可以从以此为商品基础的国家购买。而且，一个大的好处就是不再削减我们的收入来补贴那些观点不同的州，以及那些支持特朗普的人。

Philip Goetz · Answered Aug 7, 2014 · 544 Views
A book called "The Size of Nations" discusses the economic trade-offs of large countries versus small countries. The optimal size for a nation depends on many factors that are poorly understood, but that include the method of government, communications, transportation, industry diversity, trade intensity, and racial diversity.
The US is larger than optimal by all measures. But it isn't in anybody's interest to leave the US. Sure, the South can pretend they want to secede, and that might benefit everybody who remained. But it wouldn't benefit them. They'd be, like, the 10th-most important nation in the world, instead of the first, and wouldn't have any money or power unless they got Texas to go with them. (Northern Virginia has some, but would probably split off from Virginia.) And I think they know that.
Why can't we split up? Well... there isn't any mechanism in the Constitution for leaving the Union. Theoretically, a state should be able to withdraw from it, as they were the authority for entering into it. Unfortunately, people have mentally linked the right to leave the Union with the right to keep slaves. Anyone who says that states have the right to leave the US -- a thing our own government as a matter of standard policy says every other state in the world has -- is assumed to secretly favor slavery.

一本名为“国家的大小”的书讨论了大国与小国的经济权衡。一个国家的最佳规模取决于许多人们所不了解的因素，这些因素包括政府方法、通讯、交通、工业多样性、贸易强度和种族多样性。
从所有衡量标准来看，美国的规模都是最优。并且离开美国不符合所有人的利益。当然，南方可以假装他们想要脱离，这可能会使所有留下来的人受益。但这对他们没有好处。他们将从世界最重要的国家排名掉到第十位去，而不再是第一，如果他们没有得克萨斯州的支持，他们就不会有任何钱和权力。(北维吉尼亚州有一些，但很可能会与弗吉尼亚分离。)我想他们知道这一点。
为什么我们不能分开？嗯，宪法中没有任何退出联盟的规定 。从理论上讲，一个州应该能够退出，因为它们加入是的权力。不幸的是，人们从心理上把离开联邦的权利和保持奴隶的权利联系在了一起。任何人都说各州有权离开美国——然而，我们的政府出台的一个政策，说世界上的其他国家都有秘密地支持奴隶制。

Lisa K MEisel · Answered Nov 29, 2015 · 9 Views
In this case, it wouldn't be best to divide and conquer because the country relies on other factors interchangeably. We all need to agree to disagree. When it comes to trying to resolve political issues, the dynamics are endless.

在这种情况下，分而治之并不是最好的办法，因为这个国家有太多依赖于其他互换的因素了。我们都需要不同意见。当谈到试图解决政治问题时，动力是无穷无尽的。

Samuel Haut · Answered Jun 8, 2015 · 298 Views
The United States was formed as a federal collection of soveirgn states, all unified into a singular government, which merely acts as a reflection of the people. 
Far wiser people have devoted their life to the preservation and invention of such a government. I welcome your opinion with respect, and I respectfully ask you to either write a manifesto and get sent to prison or appreciate the ludacrisy of such an appeal.

美国被形成为一个联邦政府的联邦集合，这些州都统一为一个单一的政府，而这仅仅是对人民的意见的反馈。
更聪明的人把他们的一生都奉献给了这样一个政府的维护和创新。我恭敬地欢迎你的意见，并恭敬地请你要么写一份宣言，然后被送进监狱，要么感激这种呼吁。