America should split itself up into two or more nations.

I will begin by addressing the points I left out in the beginning. People in the wrong nation. People can move if they want to. I believe that moving would be encouraged and should be encouraged. Military threat By splitting up the nations, the target on America's back, you know it is there, would be removed or at least not as bold. In addition, after the split, the nations could do what they want with the military. On to what I addressed in round two. A common theme in what you wrote was addressing the problems immediately after the split but failed to see long term affects. One thing I will bring up now is getting the nation(s) on the right track. As America is going now, the tracks are splitting leading to a large political divide getting larger. If we at least adjust the borders so that the states shared the same political party, despite interior differences, it would at least put us on a track of either progessively smaller or progressively bigger government. This is opposed to the progessively larger split that con is proposing by keeping things the same. Another thing I will bring up now is punishment. Not penal systems or prisons or justice, but political ramifications. It is obvious that there are more people in New England than the south east. More people means more delegates and more delegates mean more weight in elections. If the president elected got many of its votes from one region of the United States the other states would have to suffer political ramifications. For example, Obama got most of his votes from the west coast and New England but the rest of America was for Romney. Now the red states will not get what they want and will have to suffer. Furthermore, New England and the South East are almost completely different. A law or practice that is true in populous New England may not be true for relatively more rural Georgia. Still, who gets what they want? Not Georgia. I am simply proposing that America be divided so that the nations are more similar and continuous. New England is full of cities while the southeast is full of farms and suburbs. These parts of America are just like different countries. Different accents, religious denominations, job types, and more. Yet, these places are still in one place. The very word nation means people of similar background. Are these people of similar backgrounds? No. Now for the crossing of your cross of my statement. Interest in government Con claims that people would be lest interested in politics and government if there was no reason for change. What I was attempting to prove was that when current events take place closer to home, they carry more meaning. If something carries more meaning, it inspires change. If the shooting took place in Alabama, it is closer to home for the Georgian families than a shooting in the Northern States. Thus, has more meaning. Thus, inspires people to want change. The difference with the split is what the change is. If more people are interested, more people can decide what change they want. Con claims that the cost of splitting the country would outweigh the benefits. As I previously stated, it is about getting the nations on the right track. The way we are going now we will be at the antebellum state in the country in just a few years. Of course there will still be people who think differently. Actually, they would be heard more in the smaller environment. In addition, people adapt and conform. Eventually, the democrats will become independent and the independents will eventually become moderate republicans. People are like sheep, they go with the flow. I have noticed many more people conforming to the beliefs of the democrats over time in Georgia because they overpower the republicans. If the nation splits, the democrats will conform or move out. Thus, over the course of decades, a similar political ideology would form. I would also like to address political geography. If you look at the states' colors post election, you would notice distinct splits in America. If you look at what I am stating would be nations A and B, you would notice basically no political descrepencies. The differences in political ideology occurs primarily in the cities anyway, this is highly fragmented and we would not risk any further splits beyond the obvious. Lastly, con states that the split would confuse people. Of course people would be confused by the split. Change is confusing. However, in the long run, what really actually counts, people would know what is about to happen in the nation. Now I will explain how points two and three will coexist. Point two is about having enough political differences to balance the government some. Three is about causing less confusion because there would not be as much back and forth. What I am saying by this is that the balance would simply prevent going to extremes. Currently, America is in a back and forth. Republicans and Democrats. Bill passes the senate, fails the house. Bill passes both, president vetoes it. This problem causes confusion. The split prevents going to extremes without constant back and forth. I understand that I have a unique logic, but it is still logic. I am winning for three reasons. I have explained how America is not working, which con has not. I have given a solution to America's problems, which con has not. I have explained how America can make more people happy, which con has not. All con has done up until this point is prove why I am wrong. I believe, though it is not completely his fault, con has not completely understood the reasoning behind why I believe the country should split. Con, for the most party, is trying to explain why this is not perfect. It is not perfect. Not everyone will be happy. But more will be happy and people will be happy all over the country.