The simpler solution would be simply to break up America into a bunch of smaller, more ideologically homogenous countries. (Federalism isn't the answer, because Maryland won't put up with Alabama making abortion illegal while flying the same flag.)

Based on the 2016 electoral map - or indeed, almost any from the last 20+ years - the ideologically homogeneity isn't a regional thing but a city vs rural thing.

Take the largest ~20 cities in the US and they would be city-states while literally everything else would be a single country.

Yep, this is the big problem. There's simply no viable way to split into urban countries that hold and produce a vast majority of the wealth and the majority of the population, and have a massive swathe of the the most beautiful land in the US as a separate country or countries. It would make the most awkward-looking of maps. Although, on the other hand, splitting off into city-states is a pretty fun thought project. It'd impact the electoral playing field a bit more, as well as provide some interesting effects on congressional/senatorial representation. It'd also very likely deepen the rural-urban divide even further. But rural Californians might like being separate from its more populous city-state neighbors, and I know the city-state of Atlanta would just love to be free of its surrounding rural citizens. Cleveland would likely feel better about holding its own versus the rest of rural Ohio.

It's pretty interesting to contemplate what elections would look like if all states simply apportioned their electoral votes according to Maine/Nebraska rules, or a popular-proportion scheme, and disposed of the unit rules entirely.

Maine/Nebraska rules (1 EV to winner of each CD, + 2 to statewide winner) would increase the value (and thus incidence) of partisan gerrymandering, because then it buys you not only House seats but also Presidential EVs.

87% of Maryland lives in an urban area, versus 48% of West Virginia. Maryland would drift way to the left if it wasn't forced into political compromises to accommodate other states.

It's also more like 60-40 40-60, not 90-10 10-90.

That is, there are cultural differences between the city and rural majorities, but neither group is particularly homogeneous.

> The simpler solution would be simply to break up America into a bunch of smaller, more ideologically homogenous countries.

No, it isn't, because while different ideologies have slightly different proportions among the states, the big divide is more urban/rural than regional. Breaking up just gives you the same problems multiplied numerous times with different winners and losers in each of those fights.

Your comment nailed it. Real democracy is a process involving many techniques and hard work. What you describe is how all types of corruption were ended and civil rights gained. People didn't just sit at home voting for a candidate promising, for example, blacks, women, or unionizing workers that they'd make it all better. They had to get off their ass to work at it themselves every day sometimes for years.

The faux-participation model devolved in recent election to shout stuff on online, shout stuff at TV, shout at people listening, and cast vote for one of two scumbags. The real work that got people elected was done by a combination of campaign donors, campaign workers/volunteers, media people, marketing experts, and recently hackers. This collectively filtered the election into a small number of scumbags that voting people chose from. People wanting someone better must get into the groups I listed to help someone better get into that list and stay on it despite smear campaigns. Or use the tactics you mention after election process does what it nearly always does.