America should divide(pro) or develop a method of cutting down on the bipartisanship(con).

To combat the point that this can even happen peacefully, It cannot period. There are too many up in arms people that say all or nothing between the four different portions. Regardless of military distribution that cant work either, because it cant work out peacefully the areas with the most organized systems and most powerful military infrastructure would form their own blocs, California would control enough bases to be a viable bloc, Most of South Central US would be led by the US and the North East would be under control of a government out of New York or DC (if it still exists due to political rioting causing this in the first place.) The Population of the United States is an ALL OR NOTHING kind of populous no matter who you are. When Football teams dont win in smackdown victories it is bittersweet for the winning team, When America is involved in a long drawn out conflict, its seen as a failed operation or conflict. These four nations can never exist out of the single nations that currently exists. One of the four (or three in my case) would be vying for something the other has its so near the darker heart of Human nature that it happens almost subconsciously. When you see someone who has an Iphone 5 while you are stuck with a lesser phone, most people automatically want that new Iphone vs their old one purely because its new or it is something the covet that someone else has. It would be like because the Dakotas are sparsely populated and say California got North Dakota instead of a Texas led government. formed down in the southwest. Texas will automatically want north Dakota because 1, it doesnt have it and its its a lucrative territory in reasources, and 2 California has just become one of the worlds most powerful nuclear armed nations. The Military distribution alone discredits these from ever forming outside of civil war. Imagine this You live in the New York controlled new england and its power extends just a far bit east. You have everything you want trade wise, but a new leader is elected that promises that your decent economy can be global and have major stake and control over other's because of this. This makes many fickle people look at their current situation and say "wow i could be better off than i am" This is how hitler organized a war exhausted people into a nation that dominated europe and only fell apart because it lacked the Men to complete its objectives. The failure or with his leader that he replaced shortly, Hitler, Legally and peacefully elected later in life who then became unopposed, Mao Zedong who out of the two parties dominating china drove the nationalist out to Taiwan and asserted total control over Mainland China. The point im getting across is that there may be peace for years, maybe a decade tops, but what happens when people start to wonder what it was like when the United States of America was a nation that dominated globally, that commanded respect no matter what they were doing for the most part, People would long for that and after those years of peace, Nationalism comes about. This Nationalism would lead to war, this war would lead to a conflict that 3 or 4 peaceful nations as initially intended sought to control the entirety of the previous United States and restore it in one form or another. Regardless of the peaceful intentions of your split, it would sooner or later lead to war one way or another. Envy: The people of one of these nations would envy another for something they have vs what they have. Ex: having access to Chinas industry vs Europe stinginess, or Africas underdeveloped coastline. Nationalism: Nations that would more likely be formed out of Texas New York and California would all be highly nationalistic to promote growth as well as begin hating their neighbor nation. Some states in your proposed 4 nations have more ties with one sec than another. as well Longing for the better days: Men that were once part of that global force.. what would they think about their nations technically dissolving. How would the average worker feel about being forced to become the national of California when we really wanted to be an American. Populous: The American people in general would never agree to this and hence its not plausible. Millions would take to the street and replace the government entirely than allow the nation that they patriotically support to fall apart (this would even bring liberals to the streets) As for a solution to bipartisanship, They are few and most of them involve replacing the government violently which isnt an option. The only option is to pass legislation which prevents this. Ex: passing the bill which forces the government to make a balanced budget otherwise they are ineligible for re-election. (it exists but wont happen with all of our current government men) Ex2: A new party forming more towards the middle and replacing either the Republicans or Democrats Ex3 violent: The popular uprising that is an american legality which lets up replace the government when we see fit (too destructive or dictatorial) The perfect example Richard Nixon. He was during the Time when the people assumed the President and his administration including congress, just did the right thing. Proved wrong during watergate in which he was going to be impeached and summarily resigned. Public outrage, not even rioting forced him to Resign. The same happened with Bill Clinton, He gets a few blowjobs in the white house and he is successfully impeached and admit his idiocy, he still carrier this label and many of his achievement and legislation were marred by the fact he cheated on his wife. So in reality, the only real way to solve the bipartisanship problem is the people, in this country the party system also runs in cycles, there are some less well known parties that have won things and forced changed and woke the government up. Nothing fixes things faster than millions of pissed off people who vote someone else thats comepletely off the map.. in. It is like a no name team playing Kansas State in football and utterly crushing them, it makes people pay attention to the new guy and say hey, he obviously did something right now lets hear him out. The previous person to fix bipartisanship in this country for a good amount of time was Teddy Roosevelt. he was an active progressive and the progressives stole voters from both parties. One of the main parties won, but they both knew one of their parties would cease to exist if they werent careful so they enacted change, Progressive moment. in conclusion to that the fix for the US is to Wake up just a bit more and let the government know that they cant keep it up or else they all lose their jobs, that or if they piss them off enough then AMERICANS WILL REMOVE THEM FROM POWER WITH FORCE. The biggest change for things in our previous time with our worst bipartisanship ended in the Civil war, The Union summarily crush the Confederacy but all the bloodshed solved many problems, Slavery, how the South should develop, Civil rights to a degree, American Expansionism. With enough people behind something it can happen. The confederacy is a good deal. People believed their ideals and rights were being infringed they went to war. Ex: This is a terrible thing as much of it was a lie, but Spanish American war, albeit it turned into a war of conquest it was started by public outcry, the government had to obey the people or face the consequences, which wouldve been rioting etc. Ex2: Civil rights movement of the 1960's. a Single man launched a campaign that mobilized millions of blacks and whites who were sympathetic nationwide to fix the inequalities. The million man march on washington sealed the deal on legislation to fix civil rights, His assassination then caused nationwide riots, a Great man died so that his dream could come true and for the most part it came true. So all America needs is a Another Martin luther King jr but with bipartisanship and politics