Also, it would be a huge waste of time to issue national ID cards now, when we're on the verge of splintering into warring nation states.

Honest Question: ... really?

I'm being glib, but I gotta say that "increased integration" seems like the last thing we need in a country full of people that hate each other.

The enmity doesn't break down on convenient geographical lines; it basically just charts how prosperous the urban centers of each state are.

While Ds and Rs are interspersed within states, I feel like there is a lot more acrimony between states than within them. I feel like Ds in Maryland wouldn't be so upset if they were just dealing with Rs in Maryland (and vice versa).

How would this be represented in the "purple state" craze which started about 10 years ago?

The "purple state" deal seemed "within state purple" on a county level some comments around here seem that that this type of "purple" may erupt into a "next level purple" on a national level as if we don't have that already in terms of "swing states".

So we have "the purple" on the county level, and we have "the swing" on the state level. Out of this combined whirlwind, is there any sense to be made or had?

The fallacy of the "purple state" is that it assumes that red in Maryland is the same as red in Alabama, which is just untrue.

Nobody really takes the time to understand the political situation outside of their immediate surroundings. But the most important part of this is, the geography of partisanship is changing. States change "partisan affiliation" all at once. There are supposedly-blue states that will be red soon, and, in the medium term, several southern Atlantic states are going to go blue.

I think things are too fluid to predict any kind of clear geographic fault line.

What would be interesting would be if a state somehow broke up.

I think this is a very important point. The more that power the is wielded at the Federal level the more that national politics divide the American people. Emphasizing state power, a red state can adopt one policy while a blue state can adopt another, yet each policy has minimal effect on the other, so there is no reason for citizens of either state to care all that much what the other state does. But in a system that emphasizes Federal power (which our system has been trending towards) this indifference is less likely because citizens are forced to live under whichever policy won at the Federal level.

> But in a system that emphasizes Federal power (which our system has been trending towards) this indifference is less likely because citizens are forced to live under whichever policy won at the Federal level

This system has been in place in the US for well over 200 years. The US has a long history of states vs federal government, don't believe the folks who tell you that today is any different in that respect.

The relative influence of state versus federal government has changed quite dramatically over time. In 1930, federal spending was 3.5% of GDP, versus state spending which was 9.1% of GDP. Today, it's 24% federal versus 14.8% state.

Also relatively new is the use of federal constitutional law to overturn local social/moral regulation. Half a century after Roe v. Wade, a supermajority of people in states like Alabama and Mississippi believe that abortion should be illegal in most/all cases. That's for both men and women (who poll similarly on abortion). Meanwhile, voters in Maryland are riled up to take back the Senate to protect Roe, not because there is a danger of abortion becoming illegal in Maryland (where it's supported by voters 2:1), but to make sure it stays legal in Alabama and Mississippi. In retaliation, voters in Alabama and Mississippi have made it harder for women in Maryland or Massachusetts to actually get abortions, by securing a federal ban on funding them (which creates a huge barrier because the federal government bankrolls Medicaid).

In other areas, federal constitutional law was used to strike down lots of moral regulations in conservative states (e.g. on obscenity) that were considered perfectly acceptable at the time of the founding. (Of course, in retaliation, conservatives have figured out how to use the expansive nature of the federal government to hamper the loosening of moral regulation in liberal states, e.g. marijuana laws).

For much of the first 75 years of the United States, the president was very weak, and federal law was generally scarce. There was often not even a standing army.

I'm an outsider looking in, but often you hear "America is simply to big and diverse" as an excuse to not do something every other developed country has done, like socialized medicine. If the country is that ungovernable then why hold it together?

Truth be told, 'big and diverse' is actually a mild euphemism for something much darker. The medical situation is only a symptom. Look at US history before FDR... especially labor conditions. 'And crowned thy good with brotherhood' is only part of the picture.